State v. Wogenstahl, 98-1146

• Decision Date: 10 November 1998
• Docket Number: No. 98-1146,98-1146
• Citation: 700 N.E.2d 1254,83 Ohio St.3d 516
• Parties: The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. WOGENSTAHL, Appellant.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 516

83 Ohio St.3d 516

700 N.E.2d 1254

The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. WOGENSTAHL, Appellant.

No. 98-1146.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted Aug. 19, 1998.

Decided Nov. 10, 1998.

Appellant, Jeffrey A. Wogenstahl, was convicted of aggravated murder, kidnapping, and aggravated burglary, and sentenced to death. The Court of Appeals for Hamilton County affirmed the judgment of the trial court. State v. Wogenstahl (Nov. 30, 1994), Hamilton App. No. C-930222. This court affirmed the convictions and death sentence. State v. Wogenstahl (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 344, 662 N.E.2d 311.

During the pendency of the appeal of his convictions and death sentence, appellant filed an application before the court of appeals to reopen his appeal pursuant to App.R. 26(B), arguing ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The court of appeals denied appellant's application to reopen for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. II(2)(D)(1). The court of appeals noted that under State v. Murnahan (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 60, 584 N.E.2d 1204, paragraph two of the syllabus, appellant's claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel could be raised on his direct appeal to this court.

Upon appeal, this court affirmed. State v. Wogenstahl (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 273, 662 N.E.2d 16. Shortly after that decision was rendered, this court amended S.Ct.Prac.R. II(2)(D)(1) to permit the court of appeals to retain jurisdiction to rule on an application for reopening while the case is pending before the Ohio Supreme Court.

On or about March 4, 1998, appellant filed a "Delayed Application for Reopening" before the court of appeals, alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. In an entry filed May 21, 1998, the court of appeals denied the application because appellant had failed to demonstrate good cause for filing the application more than two years after the amendment to the Supreme Court Rules of Practice. In addition, the court of appeals held that appellant's application was barred by the doctrine of res judicata, since appellant had already raised, and this court determined, the issue of appellate counsel's effectiveness in his direct appeal to this court.

Appellant now appeals the denial to this court.

Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and William E. Breyer, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Jeffrey A. Wogenstahl, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

The determinative question before this court is whether the court of appeals erred in dismissing appellant's delayed application to reopen for lack of good cause shown and on grounds of res judicata. We find that the court of appeals was correct in dismissing appellant's application to reopen, since appellant failed to demonstrate good cause in filing an untimely delayed application.

Moreover, our decision in State v. Wogenstahl, 75 Ohio St.3d at 351, 662 N.E.2d at 318, determined that appellant's claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel lacked merit. In his instant appeal before this court, appellant simply argues the same errors that we rejected in his original death penalty appeal. Therefore, that decision is res judicata. Application of the res judicata doctrine in this case is not unjust. See State v. Murnahan, 63 Ohio St.3d at 66, 584 N.E.2d at 1209.

Appellant...