Court Opinion

ID: 9926723
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-25 16:09:09.023934+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:44.344501
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Munoz, 2024-Ohio-242.]

                              COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                             EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE OF OHIO,                                   :

                Plaintiff-Appellee,              :

                v.                               :            No. 112006

ERIC MUNOZ,                                      :

                Defendant-Appellant.             :

                               JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

                JUDGMENT: APPLICATION DENIED
                RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: January 24, 2024

                          Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
                                Case No. CR-20-648577-A
                                Application for Reopening
                                    Motion No. 567053

                                           Appearances:

                Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
                Attorney, and Gregory J. Ochocki, Assistant Prosecuting
                Attorney, for appellee.

                Eric Munoz, pro se.

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J.:

                   Eric Munoz has filed a timely App.R. 26(B) application for reopening.

Munoz is attempting to reopen the appellate judgment, rendered in State v. Munoz,
8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 112006, 2023-Ohio-1895, that affirmed the convictions

rendered in State v. Munoz, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-20-648577-A, for gross sexual

imposition in violation of R.C. 2907.05(A)(4) (sexual contact with a victim under

the age of 13) and endangering children in violation of R.C. 2919.22(B)(1) (child

abuse). We decline to reopen Munoz’s appeal.

   I.     Standard of Review Applicable to App.R. 26(B) Application for
          Reopening

               An application for reopening shall be granted if there exists a genuine

issue as to whether an applicant was deprived of the effective assistance of appellate

counsel on appeal.     See App.R. 26(B)(5).     To establish a claim of ineffective

assistance of appellate counsel, Munoz is required to establish that the performance

of his appellate counsel was deficient and the deficiency resulted in prejudice.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984);

State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 538 N.E.2d 373 (1989), cert. denied,

497 U.S. 1011, 110 S.Ct. 3258, 111 L.Ed.2d 768 (1990).

               In Strickland, the United States Supreme Court held that a court’s

scrutiny of an attorney’s work must be highly deferential. The court further stated

that it is all too tempting for a defendant to second-guess his attorney after

conviction and that it would be too easy for a court to conclude that a specific act or

omission was deficient, especially when examining the matter in hindsight. Thus, a

court must indulge in a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the

wide range of reasonable professional assistance; that is, the defendant must
overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action

might be considered sound trial strategy. Strickland.

                 Moreover, even if Munoz establishes that an error by his appellate

counsel was professionally unreasonable, Munoz must further establish that he was

prejudiced; but for the unreasonable error there exists a reasonable probability that

the results of his appeal would have been different.            Reasonable probability,

regarding an application for reopening, is defined as a probability sufficient to

undermine confidence in the outcome of the appeal. State v. May, 8th Dist.

Cuyahoga No. 97354, 2012-Ohio-5504.

   II.      Argument

                 Munoz has raised five proposed assignments of error in support of his

application for reopening:

         1. Appellant’s conviction is against the manifest weight of the
         evidence.

         2. The trial court’s conduct deprived appellant of his right to a fair
         trial, effective assistance of counsel and his right to present a defense.

         3. Appellant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel when
         his attorney failed to impeach the witness, failed to present objective
         expert testimony, and failed to object to expert testimony pursuant to
         Crim.R. 16(K).

         4. Prosecutorial misconduct prejudiced appellant and denied him a
         fair trial.

         5. The cumulative effect of these errors prevented the appellant from
         having a fair trial.
               The appellant’s first, second, third, and fifth proposed assignments of

error, along with the issues appurtenant to the referenced proposed assignments of

error, were previously raised and found to be without error in the opinion rendered

by this court in State v. Munoz, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 112006, 2023-Ohio-1895:

(1) proposed assignment of error one — issue of manifest weight found to be without

error in assignment of error one reviewed on appeal; (2) proposed assignment of

error two — issues of judicial bias, unfair trial, ineffective assistance of trial counsel,

and right to examine a witness/call an expert witness found to be without error in

assignments of error three, four, and six reviewed on appeal; (3) proposed

assignment of error three — issues of trial counsel’s failure to impeach a witness and

failure of trial counsel to present an expert witness found to be without error in

assignments of error three and four reviewed on appeal; (4) proposed assignment of

error five — issue of cumulative effect of errors, resulting in an unfair trial, found to

be without error in assignment of error seven reviewed on appeal.

               The doctrine of res judicata prevents further review of the issues

raised in Munoz’s application for reopening through the first, second, third, and fifth

proposed assignments of error because the issues have already been addressed by

this court on direct appeal and found to be without merit. State v. Perry, 10 Ohio

St.2d 175, 226 N.E.2d 104 (1967). Claims of ineffective assistance of appellate

counsel in an application for reopening may be barred from further review by the

doctrine of res judicata unless circumstances render the application of the doctrine

unjust. State v. Murnahan, 63 Ohio St.3d 60, 584 N.E.2d 1204 (1992); State v.
Logan, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 88472, 2008-Ohio-1934; State v. Tate, 8th Dist.

Cuyahoga No. 81682, 2004-Ohio-973. We further find that circumstances do not

render the application of the doctrine of res judicata unjust.

               The sole proposed assignment of error not subject to res judicata is

the fourth proposed assignment of error that involves the claim of prosecutorial

misconduct. Munoz claims that he was prejudiced by prosecutorial misconduct that

resulted from the following: (1) prosecutor argued that Munoz was drinking;

(2) prosecutor “vouched” for the victim; (3) prosecutor misstated the record via

claim that Munoz did not stop assault of victim; (4) prosecutor’s comments

concerning Munoz; and (5) prosecutor relied upon the testimony of a child

protection specialist.

               The transcript clearly demonstrates that Munoz was drinking and

that the victim smelled alcohol on his breath. See tr. 316. The transcript fails to

demonstrate that the prosecutor vouched for the credibility of the victim. See

tr. 471–475; State v. Elliott, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 91999, 2009-Ohio-5816. The

prosecutor did not misstate the record via the argument that Munoz did not stop his

assault upon the victim. See tr. 257. Comments made by the prosecutor, concerning

Munoz, were not prejudicial. See tr. 342-343, 348; State v. Keenan, 66 Ohio St.3d

402, 613 N.E.2d 203 (1993). Finally, Munoz has failed to demonstrate how he was

prejudiced by the prosecutor’s reliance upon testimony of a child protection

specialist.   The simple recitation of a claimed error, without argument and

demonstration of prejudice, does not establish prosecutorial misconduct. State v.
Gaughan, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 90523, 2009-Ohio-2702. See also State v.

Littlejohn, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 95380, 2012-Ohio-1064; State v. Warner, 8th

Dist. Cuyahoga No. 95750, 2012-Ohio-256; State v. Freeman, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga

No. 95511, 2011-Ohio-5151; State v. Price, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 90308,

2009-Ohio-3503.

              Munoz has failed to establish any prejudice through his proposed

assignments of error and the issues raised in support of his claim of ineffective

assistance of appellate counsel. State v. Gulley, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109045,

2020-Ohio-4746; State v. Lester, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 105992, 2018-Ohio-5154.

              Application for reopening is denied.

______________________
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, JUDGE

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, A.J., and
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR