State v. Bryant

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State v. Bryant, 2006-Ohio-4105.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA No. 85836 STATE OF OHIO : : : : : : : : : : : : AUGUST 4, 2006 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS : : : : Application for Reopening, Motion No. 382467 Lower Court No. CR-455771 Common Pleas Court JUDGMENT : APPLICATION DENIED. Plaintiff-Appellee vs. MARVIN BRYANT Defendant-Appellant DATE OF JOURNALIZATION JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellee: WILLIAM D. MASON Cuyahoga County Prosecutor BY: KRISTEN L. LUSNIA Assistant County Prosecutor Justice Center - 9th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 For defendant-appellant: MARVIN BRYANT, pro se Inmate No. 480-285 Mansfield Correctional Institution P.O. Box 788 Mansfield, Ohio 44901-0788 JUDGE COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY: 2 {¶ 1} Marvin Bryant has filed reopening pursuant to App.R. 26(B). a timely application for He is attempting to reopen the appellate judgment that was rendered by this court in State v. Bryant, Cuyahoga App. No. 85836, 2005-Ohio-6358, which affirmed his conviction for aggravated robbery with firearm specifications, felonious assault with firearm specifications, and having weapons while under disability. For the following reasons, we decline to reopen Bryant s appeal. {¶ 2} The doctrine of res judicata prevents this court from reopening Bryant s original appeal. Errors of law that were either previously raised or could have been raised through an appeal are barred from judicata. further review based upon the operation of res See, generally, State v. Perry (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 175. 226 N.E.2d 104. The Ohio Supreme Court has also established that a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel will be barred from review by the doctrine of res judicata, unless circumstances render the application of the doctrine unjust. State v. Murnahan (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 60, 584 N.E.2d 1204. {¶ 3} Bryant has raised three proposed assignments of error in support of his application for reopening, which involve the trial court s lack of jurisdiction, the trial court s failure to preserve a document which was submitted for an in-camera inspection, and Bryant s conviction for aggravated robbery not being supported by the weight of the evidence. 3 {¶ 4} Bryant filed an appeal with the Ohio Supreme Court and raised or could have raised these issues. On May 17, 2006, the Ohio Supreme Court reversed this court s judgment and remanded Bryant s case to the trial court for resentencing. See In re Ohio Criminal Sentencing Statutes Cases, 109 Ohio St.3d 411, 2006-Ohio2394, 848 N.E.2d 804. Because the issues presently argued by Bryant were raised or could have been raised before the Ohio Supreme Court on appeal, litigation of the issues. res judicata now bars any further State v. Dehler, 73 Ohio St.3d 307, 1995-Ohio-320, 652 N.E.2d 987; State v. Terrell, 72 Ohio St.3d 247, 1995-Ohio-54, 648 N.E.2d 1353, State v. Crotts, Cuyahoga App. No. 81477, 2006-Ohio-1099, reopening disallowed (Mar. 6, 2006), Motion No. 376246; State v. Loyed, Cuyahoga App. No. 83075, 2004-Ohio3961, reopening disallowed (Apr. 27, 2005), Motion No. 365802; State v. Smith (Jan. 29, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 68643, reopening disallowed (June 14, 2996), Motion No. 71793. Finally, Bryant s application for reopening is moot since the Ohio Supreme Court reversed the appellate judgment of this court and remanded the action to the trial court for resentencing. State v. Bigsby, Cuyahoga App. No. 83370, 2005-Ohio-3590, reopening disallowed (May 22, 2006), Motion No. 376789. {¶ 5} Application for reopening is denied. COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY 4 JUDGE ANN DYKE, A.J., CONCURS SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., CONCURS

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.