State v. Slagle

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State v. Slagle, 2002-Ohio-2722.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 55759 STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee -vsBILLY SLAGLE Defendant-Appellant DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: JUDGMENT: : : : : : : : : : : JOURNAL ENTRY and OPINION MAY 29, 2002 Application for Reopening, Motion No. 33642 Lower Court No. CR-220252 Common Pleas Court Application Denied. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCE: For Plaintiff-Appellee: WILLIAM D. MASON Cuyahoga County Prosecutor KAREN L. JOHNSON DIANE SMILANICK Assistant County Prosecutors 8th Floor Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 For Defendant-Appellant: PATRICIA M. WALSH 1370 Ontario Street, Suite 1040 Cleveland, Ohio 44113 - i - For Appellant: DAVID BODIKER KELLY L. CULSHAW ROBERT K. LOWE LINDA E. PRUCHA PAMELA PRUDE-SMITHERS JOSEPH E. WILHELM Assistant State Public Defenders Ohio Public Defenders Commission 8 East Long Street, 11th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43266-0587 PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, P.J.: {¶1} On November 20, 2001, Billy Slagle, Jr., through counsel, filed a second application for reopening pursuant to App. R. 26(B). He is again attempting to reopen the appellate judgment that was rendered by this court in State v. Slagle (Jun. 14, 1990), Cuyahoga App. No. 55759. convictions and In that sentence opinion, for burglary, and aggravated robbery. we aggravated affirmed murder, defendant s aggravated On December 19, 2001, the State of Ohio, through the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor s office, filed a memorandum of law in opposition to the application for reopening. For the following reasons, we decline to reopen Slagle s original appeal. {¶2} The record indicates that Mr. Slagle, through the public defender s office, filed his first application to reopen pursuant to App.R. 26(B) on August 4, 1994. This court subsequently denied that application on September 1, 1994 finding that the application was procedurally defective, and because the arguments raised were previously addressed on direct appeal. {¶3} Mr. Slagle s second application is not well taken because there is no right to file successive applications for reopening pursuant to App.R. 26(B). State v. Richardson, 74 Ohio St.3d 235, 1996-Ohio-258, 658 N.E.2d 273; State v. Cheren, 73 Ohio St.3d 137, 1995-Ohio-38, 652 N.E.2d 707; State v. Peeples, 73 Ohio St.3d 149, 1995-Ohio-357, 652 N.E.2d 717; State v. Towns (Nov. 3, 1997), Cuyahoga App. No. 71244, reopening disallowed, (Apr. 22, 2002), Motion No. 37343; State v. Sherrills (Sept. 18, 1997), Cuyahoga App. No. 56777, reopening disallowed, (Mar. 6, 2001), Motion No. 24318; and State v. Stewart (Nov. 19, 1998), Cuyahoga App. No. 73255, reopening disallowed, (Nov. 2, 2001), Motion No. 32159. In State v. Reddick, 72 Ohio St.3d 88, 90-91, 1995-Ohio-249, 647 N.E.2d 784, the Supreme Court of Ohio stated: Neither Murnahan nor App.R. 26(B) was intended as an open invitation for persons sentenced to long periods of incarceration to concoct new theories of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel in order to have a new round of appeals. {¶4} Furthermore, the doctrine of res judicata prohibits this court from considering Mr. Slagle s second application for reopening because his new claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel could have been raised in his initial application to reopen. Stewart; Fuller; State v. Phelps (Sept. 30, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 69157, second reopening disallowed (Nov. 30, 1998), Motion No. 79992; and State v. Brantley (June 29, 1992), Cuyahoga App. No. 62412, second reopening disallowed (May 22, 1996), Motion No. 72855. Accordingly, Mr. Slagle s second application for reopening is denied. JAMES J. SWEENEY, J., and TERRENCE O DONNELL, J., CONCUR. PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON PRESIDING JUDGE

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.