State v. Steimle, Unpublished Decision (6-30-2005)

Ohio Court of Appeals

State v. Steimle, Unpublished Decision (6-30-2005)

2005 Ohio 3478

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 30, 2005

DocketNos. 77005, 77006, 77302, 77303.

StatusUnpublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 2005 Ohio 3478 (State v. Steimle, Unpublished Decision (6-30-2005)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Steimle, Unpublished Decision (6-30-2005), 2005 Ohio 3478 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION {¶ 1} Christ Steimle, through an application for reopening, is attempting to reopen the appellate judgment that was rendered by this court in State v. Steimle (Dec. 7, 2000), Cuyahoga App. Nos. 77005, 77006, 77302, and 77303, which affirmed his plea of guilty to the offenses of felonious assault and intimidation. Steimle argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel upon appeal.

{¶ 2} An application for reopening, as filed pursuant to App.R. 26(B), must be based upon a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. See App.R. 26(B)(1). Steimle, however, represented himself on appeal to this court in State v. Steimle, supra. Therefore, he is precluded from arguing his own ineffective assistance of appellate counsel through the present application for reopening. State v. Boone (1996),114 Ohio App.3d 275, 683 N.E.2d 67; State v. Smith (Nov. 29, 2001), Cuyahoga App. No. 79292, reopening disallowed (Mar. 8, 2002), Motion No. 36058; State v. Bobo (Jan. 16, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 60013, reopening disallowed (Apr. 10, 1996), Motion No. 69762.

{¶ 3} Accordingly, the application for reopening is denied.

Ann Dyke, P.J., Concurs Sweeney, J., Concurs

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

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION {¶ 1} Christ Steimle, through an application for reopening, is attempting to reopen the appellate judgment that was rendered by this court in State v. Steimle (Dec. 7, 2000), Cuyahoga App. Nos. 77005, 77006, 77302, and 77303, which affirmed his plea of guilty to the offenses of felonious assault and intimidation. Steimle argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel upon appeal.

{¶ 2} An application for reopening, as filed pursuant to App.R. 26(B), must be based upon a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. See App.R. 26(B)(1). Steimle, however, represented himself on appeal to this court in State v. Steimle, supra. Therefore, he is precluded from arguing his own ineffective assistance of appellate counsel through the present application for reopening. State v. Boone (1996),114 Ohio App.3d 275, 683 N.E.2d 67; State v. Smith (Nov. 29, 2001), Cuyahoga App. No. 79292, reopening disallowed (Mar. 8, 2002), Motion No. 36058; State v. Bobo (Jan. 16, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 60013, reopening disallowed (Apr. 10, 1996), Motion No. 69762.

{¶ 3} Accordingly, the application for reopening is denied.

Ann Dyke, P.J., Concurs Sweeney, J., Concurs

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2005 Ohio 3478, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-steimle-unpublished-decision-6-30-2005-ohioctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack