COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 71751 STATE OF OHIO : : JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-Appellee : : and -vs- : : OPINION LEO DARRINGTON : : Defendant-Appellant : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT __________________________ OF DECISION: CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil appeal from Common Pleas Court Case No. CR-294810 JUDGMENT: Affirmed. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: __________________________ APPEARANCE: For Plaintiff-Appellee: For Defendant-Appellant: STEPHANIE TUBBS-JONES, ESQ. LEO DARRINGTON, Pro Se Cuyahoga County Prosecutor #265-569 SHERRY F. McCREARY, ESQ. P. O. Box 788 Assistant County Prosecutor Mansfield, Ohio 44901 8th Floor Justice 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 2 PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, J.: Leo Darrington, defendant-appellant, appeals from the decision of the trial court denying his petition for post-conviction relief. Darrington assigns the following errors for our review: I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY HOLDING THAT APPELLANT'S POST- CONVICTION CLAIMS ARE BARRED BY THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA. II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION, IN VIOLATION OF APPELLANT'S RIGHTS PROTECTED BY THE SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, AND ARTICLE 1, SECTION 10 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION, BY HOLDING THAT APPELLANT FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE, AFTER APPELLANT HAD CLEARLY SET FORTH SUFFICIENT OPERATIVE FACTS AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL. Having reviewed the record and the legal arguments of the parties, we affirm the decision of the trial court. A jury found Darrington guilty of felonious assault, aggravated robbery and possession of criminal tools. Darrington was sentenced to consecutive terms of eight to fifteen years on count one, seven to twenty-five years on count two, and a concurrent term of eighteen months on count three. Darrington appealed his conviction to this court in State v. Darrington (Sept. 21, 1995), Cuy.App.No. 65588, unreported. The appeal involved, inter alia, the following issues: sufficiency of the evidence, manifest weight of the evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel. His conviction was affirmed. His motion for leave to file delayed appeal was denied by the Ohio Supreme Court on January 31, 1996. 3 On September 11, 1996, Darrington filed a Petition for Post- Conviction Relief pursuant to R.C. 2953.21. The State responded with a Motion to Dismiss arguing res judicata. The trial court granted the Motion to Dismiss and issued findings of fact and conclusions of law in a journal entry dated December 3, 1996. This appeal followed. Both of Darrington's assigned errors will be addressed together. The issue in this appeal is whether Darrington's claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata. In 1995, this court issued an opinion affirming the action of the trial court and overruling Darrington's claims, which included a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Darrington, in this appeal, raises the same claim, i.e., his lawyer failed to investigate the case. Under the doctrine of res judicata he is barred from raising that issue in this appeal. A petition for post-conviction relief alleging the petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel during trial, is subject to dismissal on res judicata grounds where the petitioner raised the same claim on direct appeal. See State v. Jenkins (1987), 42 Ohio App.3d 97, 99. Additionally he claims in this appeal that his trial counsel failed to object to prosecutorial misconduct; to request proper jury instructions; and to object to judicial bias on behalf of the trial court. *** Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment of conviction bars the convicted defendant from raising *** any claimed lack of due process that was raised or could have 4 been raised by the defendant *** on an appeal from that judgment. State v. Perry (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 180. These claims are also barred under the doctrine of res judicata because they could have been raised on direct appeal. Id. Lastly, Darrington argues his claims are not barred by res judicata because they are based on facts dehors the record. Based on our review of the record, we conclude the claims raised by Darrington are determinable without reference to such evidence. See State v. Lentz (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 527; State v. Cooperrider (1983), 4 Ohio St.3d 226. Accordingly, res judicata operates to bar his petition for post-conviction relief. Judgment affirmed. 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. The defendant's conviction having been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case remanded to the trial court for execution of sentence. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. DYKE, J., and ROCCO, J., CONCUR. PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON 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 .