State v. Tyler

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. Tyler

1994 Ohio 8, 71 Ohio St. 3d 398

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 29, 1994

Docket1994-1636

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 1994 Ohio 8 (State v. Tyler) 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. Tyler, 1994 Ohio 8, 71 Ohio St. 3d 398 (Ohio 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 71 Ohio St.3d 398.]

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. TYLER, APPELLANT. [Cite as State v. Tyler, 1994-Ohio-8.] Appellate procedure—Application for reopening appeal from judgment and conviction based on claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel— Application denied when issues raised are res judicata. (No. 94-1636—Submitted November 1, 1994—Decided December 30, 1994.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 51696. __________________ {¶ 1} Appellant, Arthur Tyler, was convicted of aggravated murder with felony-murder and firearm specifications, and aggravated robbery, and was sentenced to death. The court of appeals affirmed the convictions. This court affirmed the appellate court. State v. Tyler (1990), 50 Ohio St. 3d 24, 553 N.E. 2d 576. He subsequently filed an application for delayed reconsideration in the court of appeals, it seems on or about June 30, 1993, pursuant to State v. Murnahan (1992), 63 Ohio St. 3d 60, 584 N.E. 2d 1204, arguing that his appellate counsel at the court of appeals was ineffective by failing to raise one hundred twenty-one additional assignments of error. The court of appeals denied the application, holding that the issues were res judicata because appellant, who filed his own supplemental brief at the court of appeals, could have raised the issues there, since he raised others, and because he had new counsel on direct appeal to this court who could have raised the issues there. Appellant now appeals that decision. __________________ Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Karen L. Johnson, for appellee. David H. Bodiker, Ohio Public Defender, Pamela Prude-Smithers and Randall L. Porter, Assistant State Public Defenders, for appellant. SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

__________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 2} The decision of the court of appeals is affirmed for the reasons stated in its opinion. Judgment accordingly. MOYER, C.J., A.W. SWEENEY, DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur. WRIGHT, J., dissents. __________________

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 71 Ohio St.3d 398.]

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. TYLER, APPELLANT. [Cite as State v. Tyler, 1994-Ohio-8.] Appellate procedure—Application for reopening appeal from judgment and conviction based on claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel— Application denied when issues raised are res judicata. (No. 94-1636—Submitted November 1, 1994—Decided December 30, 1994.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 51696. __________________ {¶ 1} Appellant, Arthur Tyler, was convicted of aggravated murder with felony-murder and firearm specifications, and aggravated robbery, and was sentenced to death. The court of appeals affirmed the convictions. This court affirmed the appellate court. State v. Tyler (1990), 50 Ohio St. 3d 24, 553 N.E. 2d 576. He subsequently filed an application for delayed reconsideration in the court of appeals, it seems on or about June 30, 1993, pursuant to State v. Murnahan (1992), 63 Ohio St. 3d 60, 584 N.E. 2d 1204, arguing that his appellate counsel at the court of appeals was ineffective by failing to raise one hundred twenty-one additional assignments of error. The court of appeals denied the application, holding that the issues were res judicata because appellant, who filed his own supplemental brief at the court of appeals, could have raised the issues there, since he raised others, and because he had new counsel on direct appeal to this court who could have raised the issues there. Appellant now appeals that decision. __________________ Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Karen L. Johnson, for appellee. David H. Bodiker, Ohio Public Defender, Pamela Prude-Smithers and Randall L. Porter, Assistant State Public Defenders, for appellant. SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

__________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 2} The decision of the court of appeals is affirmed for the reasons stated in its opinion. Judgment accordingly. MOYER, C.J., A.W. SWEENEY, DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur. WRIGHT, J., dissents. __________________

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1994 Ohio 8, 71 Ohio St. 3d 398, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-tyler-ohio-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack