[Cite as State v. Jones,

.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 99703

STATE OF OHIO

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

vs.

LISA JONES DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

JUDGMENT: APPLICATION DENIED

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case Nos. CR-12-568908 and CR-12-568910 Application for Reopening Motion No. 474972

RELEASE DATE: October 7, 2014 FOR APPELLANT

Lisa Jones, pro se Inmate No. 85971 Ohio Reformatory for Women Hale Cottage 1479 Collins Avenue, K-1 Marysville, OH 43040

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Timothy J. McGinty Cuyahoga County Prosecutor

BY: Daniel T. Van Assistant County Prosecutor The Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street, 8th Floor Cleveland, OH 44113 MELODY J. STEWART, J.:

{¶1} Lisa Jones has filed a timely application for reopening pursuant to App.R.

26(B). Jones is attempting to reopen the appellate judgment, rendered in State v. Jones,

8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99703,

, that affirmed her plea of guilty to the

offenses of aggravated arson, arson, and menacing by stalking, but reversed and

remanded for resentencing. For the following reasons, we decline to reopen Jones’s

appeal.

{¶2} In her application, Jones submits 15 proposed assignments of error in support

of her claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Jones, however, fails to

present any cogent argument within the proposed assignments of error demonstrating that

appellate counsel was deficient on appeal or that she was prejudiced by that deficiency.

In State v. Kelly, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 74912,

(June 21,

2000), this court held that the mere recitation of proposed assignments of error is not

sufficient to meet applicant’s burden to prove that appellate counsel was deficient for

failing to raise the errors now presented, as well as showing that had counsel argued those

errors on appeal, there was a reasonable probability that counsel would have been

successful. See also State v. Spivey,

,

,

;

State v. Hawkins, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 90704,

.

{¶3} It must be also noted that the doctrine of res judicata prevents this court from

reopening Jones’s original appeal. Errors of law and issues that were previously raised

through an appeal are barred from further review based on the operation of res judicata. See generally State v. Perry,

,

(1967). In addition, the

Supreme Court of Ohio has established that a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel

will be barred by the doctrine of res judicata, unless circumstances render the application

of the doctrine unjust. State v. Murnahan,

,

(1992).

{¶4} Herein, the issues of failure to transfer to the mental health docket, the guilty

plea was not voluntary, allied offenses of similar import, and the imposition of

consecutive sentences of incarceration have already been addressed on direct appeal and

found to be without merit. Thus, we find that the doctrine of res judicata prevents further

review of the issues of the mental health docket, involuntary plea of guilty, allied offenses

of similar import, and consecutive sentencing. We further find that the application of the

doctrine of res judicata is not unjust. State v. Tabasso, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98248,

.

{¶5} Jones has failed to establish ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.

Accordingly, we decline to reopen Jones’s original appeal.

{¶6} Application denied.

MELODY J. STEWART, JUDGE

LARRY A. JONES, SR., P.J., and EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR