[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 71 Ohio St.3d 167.]

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. LIEBTAG, APPELLANT. [Cite as State v. Liebtag, 1994-Ohio-72.] Appellate procedure—App.R. 26—Application for reopening appeal from judgment and conviction based on claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel—Application denied when issue raised by appellant has previously been considered by appellate court. (No. 94-1473 Submitted—October 24, 1994—Decided December 14, 1994.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Stark County, No. CA-9365. __________________ {¶ 1} Appellant, Craig L. Liebtag, alleges he was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in 1988, after pleading guilty. In 1993, he was allowed to file a delayed appeal, but the court of appeals affirmed the conviction by judgment entry of February 7, 1994. Appellant subsequently applied to the court of appeals to reopen the appeal from the judgment of conviction, alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel involving his plea of guilty to involuntary manslaughter. The court of appeals denied the application, stating in its entry on reconsideration that the issue raised by appellant had previously been considered in its February 7, 1994 opinion. Appellant appeals the denial to this court. __________________ Craig L. Liebtag, pro se. __________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 2} The decision of the court of appeals is affirmed for the reasons stated therein. Judgment affirmed. SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

MOYER, C.J., A.W. SWEENEY, DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur. WRIGHT, J., dissents. __________________

2