State v. Sibert

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. Sibert

1996 Ohio 15, 74 Ohio St. 3d 342

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 17, 1996

Docket1995-1396

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1996 Ohio 15 (State v. Sibert) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Sibert, 1996 Ohio 15, 74 Ohio St. 3d 342 (Ohio 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 74 Ohio St.3d 342.]

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. SIBERT, APPELLANT. [Cite as State v. Sibert, 1996-Ohio-15.] Appellate procedure—Application for reopening appeal from judgment and conviction based on claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel— Application denied when applicant not prejudiced by counsel’s failure to file a motion to suppress certain incriminating statements made to the police. (No. 95-1396—Submitted September 26, 1995—Decided January 17, 1996.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Adams County, No. 93CA562. __________________ {¶ 1} Appellant, Jeffrey B. Sibert, was convicted of three counts of rape with force specifications and sentenced to two consecutive terms of life imprisonment and to a third such term concurrent with the other two. The convictions were affirmed on appeal. State v. Sibert (1994), 98 Ohio App.3d 412, 648 N.E.2d 861. {¶ 2} Subsequently, appellant filed an application to reopen his appeal pursuant to App.R. 26(B), alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel because appellate counsel did not raise the issue that as trial counsel he failed to file a motion to suppress certain incriminating statements appellant had made to a police officer. The court of appeals examined the record and, inter alia, held that even if it had been error not to file a motion to suppress, appellant had not been prejudiced because the three victims all testified at trial. {¶ 3} Appellant appeals from the denial of his application to reopen. __________________ Greg Carroll, Adams County Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. Jeffrey B. Sibert, pro se. SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

__________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 4} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed for the reason stated above. On appeal, appellant alleges failure of trial counsel to present the issue of his mental competence. Apparently, the issue was not raised in the court of appeals; therefore, we will not consider it for the first time on appeal. Zakany v. Zakany (1984), 9 Ohio St.3d 192, 193, 9 OBR 505, 506-507, 459 N.E.2d 870, 872. Judgment affirmed. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., concur. __________________

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 74 Ohio St.3d 342.]

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. SIBERT, APPELLANT. [Cite as State v. Sibert, 1996-Ohio-15.] Appellate procedure—Application for reopening appeal from judgment and conviction based on claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel— Application denied when applicant not prejudiced by counsel’s failure to file a motion to suppress certain incriminating statements made to the police. (No. 95-1396—Submitted September 26, 1995—Decided January 17, 1996.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Adams County, No. 93CA562. __________________ {¶ 1} Appellant, Jeffrey B. Sibert, was convicted of three counts of rape with force specifications and sentenced to two consecutive terms of life imprisonment and to a third such term concurrent with the other two. The convictions were affirmed on appeal. State v. Sibert (1994), 98 Ohio App.3d 412, 648 N.E.2d 861. {¶ 2} Subsequently, appellant filed an application to reopen his appeal pursuant to App.R. 26(B), alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel because appellate counsel did not raise the issue that as trial counsel he failed to file a motion to suppress certain incriminating statements appellant had made to a police officer. The court of appeals examined the record and, inter alia, held that even if it had been error not to file a motion to suppress, appellant had not been prejudiced because the three victims all testified at trial. {¶ 3} Appellant appeals from the denial of his application to reopen. __________________ Greg Carroll, Adams County Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. Jeffrey B. Sibert, pro se. SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

__________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 4} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed for the reason stated above. On appeal, appellant alleges failure of trial counsel to present the issue of his mental competence. Apparently, the issue was not raised in the court of appeals; therefore, we will not consider it for the first time on appeal. Zakany v. Zakany (1984), 9 Ohio St.3d 192, 193, 9 OBR 505, 506-507, 459 N.E.2d 870, 872. Judgment affirmed. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., concur. __________________

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1996 Ohio 15, 74 Ohio St. 3d 342, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-sibert-ohio-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack