Ohio Court of Appeals, 2005

State v. Steimle, Unpublished Decision (6-30-2005)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Decided June 30, 2005 · JUDGE DIANE KARPINSKI:

2005 Ohio 3478

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision.

State v. Arcuri, 84435 (3-12-2008) (Ohio Ct. App. 2008)
State v. Spurlock, Unpublished Decision (9-23-2005) (Ohio Ct. App. 2005)
State v. Steimle, Unpublished Decision (8-25-2005) (Ohio Ct. App. 2005)
State v. McCauley, Unpublished Decision (11-16-2005) (Ohio Ct. App. 2005)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION{¶ 1} Christ Steimle, through an application for reopening, is attempting to reopen the appellate judgment that was rendered by this court in State v. Steimle (Dec. 7, 2000), Cuyahoga App. Nos. 77005, 77006, 77302, and 77303, which affirmed his plea of guilty to the offenses of felonious assault and intimidation. Steimle argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel upon appeal.

{¶ 2} An application for reopening, as filed pursuant to App.R. 26(B), must be based upon a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. See App.R. 26(B)(1). Steimle, however, represented himself on appeal to this court in State v. Steimle, supra. Therefore, he is precluded from arguing his own ineffective assistance of appellate counsel through the present application for reopening. State v. Boone (1996),114 Ohio App.3d 275, 683 N.E.2d 67; State v. Smith (Nov. 29, 2001), Cuyahoga App. No. 79292, reopening disallowed (Mar. 8, 2002), Motion No. 36058; State v. Bobo (Jan. 16, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 60013, reopening disallowed (Apr. 10, 1996), Motion No. 69762.

{¶ 3} Accordingly, the application for reopening is denied.

Ann Dyke, P.J., Concurs Sweeney, J., Concurs

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.