State v. Houston
| Decision Date | 23 August 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-600,95-600 |
| Citation | 73 Ohio St.3d 346,652 N.E.2d 1018 |
| Parties | The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. HOUSTON, Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Appellant, Darrell Houston, was convicted of aggravated murder with a firearm specification, aggravated robbery with a firearm specification and having a weapon while under disability and sentenced accordingly. The court of appeals affirmed his convictions and sentence. State v. Houston (Jan. 13, 1994), Cuyahoga App. No. 64574, unreported, 1994 WL 11322. This court then denied leave to appeal.
On January 10, 1995, Houston filed with the court of appeals an application to reopen his appeal under App.R. 26(B), alleging ineffective assistance of his appellate counsel. The court of appeals denied the application, finding that appellant had failed to establish good cause for not filing the application to reopen within ninety days from the journalization of the appellate judgment as required by App.R. 26(B)(2)(b). Additionally, the court of appeals held that Houston failed to demonstrate that circumstances render the application of res judicata to his prayer for reopening unjust. Appellant appeals the denial to this court.
Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Cuyahoga County Pros. Atty., and Diane Smilanick, Asst. Pros. Atty., for appellee.
Darrell Houston, pro se.
We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals for the following reasons.
App.R. 26(B)(2)(b) requires that an application for reopening establish "a showing of good cause for untimely filing if the application is filed more than ninety days after journalization of the appellate judgment." Appellant's application to reopen was not filed until nearly one year after journalization of the appellate judgment. Appellant claims that he was denied access to his trial transcript, which allegedly prevented him from discovering his appellate counsel's deficiencies in a timely manner. However, the basis of appellant's claim--counsel's failure to call certain defense witnesses to testify--does not require a transcript to be identified. See State v. Bell (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 32, 652 N.E.2d 191. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the court of appeals as to the failure to show good cause.
Res judicata may be applied to bar further litigation of issues that were raised previously or could have been raised previously in an appeal. See State v. Perry (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 39 O.O.2d 189, 226 N.E.2d 104. In State v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reed v. Sheldon
...of appeal. See Smith v. Warden, Lebanon Corr. Inst., No. 3:06-cv-326, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54718 (S.D. Ohio May 4, 2007); State v. Houston, 73 Ohio St.3d 346, 1995-Ohio-317 (1995); see also State v. Sweeney, 131 Ohio App.3d 765, 769 (1999) ("lack of access to various parts of the transcrip......
-
State v. Jones
...applied, courts have recognized "that in some cases 'circumstances render the application of res judicata unjust.' " State v. Houston, 73 Ohio St. 3d 346, 347, 1995-Ohio-317, 652 N.E.2d 1018 (1995), quoting State v. Murnahan, 63 Ohio St.3d 60, 66, 584 N.E.2d 1204 (1992), see also State v. S......
-
Landrum v. Anderson, No. C-1-96-641.
...Winstead, 74 Ohio St.3d 277, 658 N.E.2d 722 (1996); State v. Witlicki, 74 Ohio St.3d 237, 658 N.E.2d 275 (1996); State v. Houston, 73 Ohio St.3d 346, 652 N.E.2d 1018 (1995). The record reflects that appellant was represented by several different attorneys during the seven years after repres......
-
Hous v. State
...affirmed, holding that Houston failed to show good cause for his untimely filing of the application for reopening in State v. Houston, 73 Ohio St.3d 346, 652 N.E.2d 1018 (1995). {¶ 7} Houston then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court, again raising trial counsel's i......