State v. Stockwell, Unpublished Decision (3-26-2002)

Ohio Court of Appeals

State v. Stockwell, Unpublished Decision (3-26-2002)

Ohio Court of Appeals·Decided March 26, 2002·No. No. 78501.·Unpublished

Opinion

JOURNAL ENTRY and OPINION On March 13, 2002, Scott Stockwell, through counsel, filed an application for delayed reopening, pursuant to App.R. 26(B), to reopen, for the second time, the appellate judgment rendered in State v.Stockwell (Aug. 6, 2001), Cuyahoga App. No. 78501, unreported.

There is no right to file successive applications for reopening pursuant to App.R. 26(B). State v. Richardson (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 235,658 N.E.2d 273; State v. Cheren (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 137, 652 N.E.2d 707;State v. Peeples (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 149, 652 N.E.2d 717. Additionally, the doctrine of res judicata prevents this court from considering Stockwell's second application for reopening because the claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel were already raised in the initial application to reopen. State v. Phelps (Sept. 30, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 69157, unreported, second reopening disallowed (Nov. 30, 1998), Motion No. 79992; State v. Brantley (June 29, 1992), Cuyahoga App. No. 62412, unreported, second reopening disallowed (May 22, 1996), Motion No. 72855.

Accordingly, Stockwell's second application for reopening is denied.

TIMOTHY E. McMONAGLE. A.J. and JAMES D. SWEENEY. J. CONCUR

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

JOURNAL ENTRY and OPINION On March 13, 2002, Scott Stockwell, through counsel, filed an application for delayed reopening, pursuant to App.R. 26(B), to reopen, for the second time, the appellate judgment rendered in State v.Stockwell (Aug. 6, 2001), Cuyahoga App. No. 78501, unreported.

There is no right to file successive applications for reopening pursuant to App.R. 26(B). State v. Richardson (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 235,658 N.E.2d 273; State v. Cheren (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 137, 652 N.E.2d 707;State v. Peeples (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 149, 652 N.E.2d 717. Additionally, the doctrine of res judicata prevents this court from considering Stockwell's second application for reopening because the claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel were already raised in the initial application to reopen. State v. Phelps (Sept. 30, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 69157, unreported, second reopening disallowed (Nov. 30, 1998), Motion No. 79992; State v. Brantley (June 29, 1992), Cuyahoga App. No. 62412, unreported, second reopening disallowed (May 22, 1996), Motion No. 72855.

Accordingly, Stockwell's second application for reopening is denied.

TIMOTHY E. McMONAGLE. A.J. and JAMES D. SWEENEY. J. CONCUR

State v. Stockwell, Unpublished Decision (3-26-2002), (Ohio Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

State v. Stockwell, Unpublished Decision (3-26-2002) (State v. Stockwell, Unpublished Decision (3-26-2002)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related