COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 71055 STATE OF OHIO, : : Plaintiff-Appellee : : JOURNAL ENTRY vs. : and : OPINION DAVID HALL, : : Defendant-Appellant : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION : JUNE 12, 1997 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : Civil appeal from : Common Pleas Court : Case No. CR-269798 JUDGMENT : AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : _______________________ APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellee: John R. Mitchell Assistant Prosecuting Attorney The Justice Center - 8th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 For defendant-appellant: David Hall, Pro Se Serial No. A256-570 Marion Correctional Institute P.O. Box 1812 N.C.C.I. Marion, Ohio 43301 -2- NAHRA, P.J.: Appellant David Hall ("Hall") appeals from the trial court's denial of his petition for postconviction relief. Because appellant's claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata, we affirm the trial court's ruling. After an incident involving his ex-girlfriend, appellant was indicted on one count of felonious assault and one count of kidnapping. Prior to trial, Hall moved to dismiss the indictment citing an alleged violation of Ohio's "speedy trial" statute, R.C. 2945.71. The lower court denied his motion and the case proceeded to trial. On April 23, 1992, Hall was convicted of felonious assault and sentenced to eleven to fifteen years incarceration. Hall appealed to this court. He assigned as error the trial court's denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment based upon R.C. 2945.71. This court, in State v. Hall (Sept. 30, 1993), Cuyahoga App. No. 63771, unreported, determined that Hall's speedy trial rights under R.C. 2945.71 were not violated. Consequently, we affirmed the conviction. Thereafter, appellant moved the trial court for postconviction relief. In his petition, he argued that his statutory right to a speedy trial was violated. Further, he contended that his trial counsel committed errors thereby violating his right to effective assistance of counsel. The trial court denied Hall's petition in toto. Hall appeals and assigns one error for review which states: -3- Defendant's Effective Assistance of Counsel was violated when Trial Counsel Erroneously stipulated to fraudulent, falsified records, Parole Holder to a non-existent Parole Officer named Ronald Simpco and the Trial Court erred by overruling Appellant's motion to dismiss pursuant to his Statutory Speedy Trial Rights under R.C. 2945.71-71. (Sic.) Essentially, Hall contends that he was tried 267 days after his arrest in violation of R.C. 2945.71. Appellant's argument was addressed by this court in his prior appeal. Hall, supra. Therein, we concluded that appellant's rights under R.C. 2945.71 were not violated. The docket entries of the trial court indicate that a total of 65 speedy trial days elapsed. This is well within the 90 day provision of R.C. 2945.71(E). Accordingly, the doctrine of res judicata bars further review of this issue. The doctrine of res judicata bars the post-conviction (sic) litigation of issues which were or should have been addressed on direct appeal. State v. Gilbert (July 25, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 69902, unreported. State v. Perry (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 39 O.O.2d 189, 226 N.E.2d 104; State v. Richardson (Feb. 15, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 69131, unreported, aff'd, (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 235. Our decision in Hall's previous appeal is conclusive. Although not separately argued, Hall also contends that his trial attorney failed to render effective assistance of counsel. Hall alleges that his trial counsel failed to present a viable defense, that he agreed upon an improper stipulation, and that he failed to investigate the trial court's journal entries, statements and records. However, Hall's failure to raise these issues in his -4- prior appeal is fatal to his instant claim. In State v. Richardson, supra, we stated: Defendant did not raise his claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel on his direct appeal. In the case below, defendant was afforded new counsel on direct appeal. The doctrine of res judicata bars post conviction (sic) litigation of issues which were or should have been addressed on direct appeal. State v. Perry (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 175; State v. Combs (1994), 100 Ohio App. 3d 90, 97. Accord State v. Gray (July 3, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 69903, unreported; State v. Marsh (March 10, 1994), Cuyahoga App. Nos. 64830, 64831, unreported. The record indicates that on his first appeal, Hall was represented by an attorney other than his trial counsel. Accordingly, the doctrine of res judicata bars his instant claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Further, with respect to Hall's claim that his trial counsel improperly stipulated to the existence of a parole holder, such claim is immaterial in light of the fact that the existence of said parole holder was not relied upon by this court when it determined that Hall was timely brought to trial under R.C. 2945.71. See Hall, supra. For the forgoing reasons, we overrule appellant's assignment of error. Judgment affirmed. -5- It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant its costs herein taxed. The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. PATTON, J., and ROCCO, J., CONCUR. JOSEPH J. NAHRA PRESIDING JUDGE N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court's decision. See App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 27. This decision will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App.R. 22(E) unless a motion for reconsideration with supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days of the announcement of the court's decision. The time period for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the journalization of this court's announcement of decision by the .