COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 73310 STATE OF OHIO, : : JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-Appellee : : AND vs. : : : OPINION CHRISTOPHER BELL, : : Defendant-Appellant : : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 10, 1998 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil appeal from Common Pleas Court Case No. CR-260396 JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee: STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES Cuyahoga County Prosecutor ARTHUR A. ELKINS Assistant Prosecuting Attorney The Justice Center - 8th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 For Defendant-Appellant: CHRISTOPHER BELL, Pro Se #A240-363 P.O. Box 788 Mansfield, Ohio 44901 -2- JUDGE TERRENCE O'DONNELL: Christopher Bell appeals from a decision of the common pleas court denying his motion for post-conviction relief regarding his 1991 convictions for murder, attempted murder, receiving stolen property, and having a weapon while under disability, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. For the reasons set forth below, we reject this allegation and affirm the judgment of the trial court. The record in this case reveals that following a bifurcated trial proceeding, on July 24, 1991, a jury returned verdicts finding Bell guilty of one count of murder in connection with the shooting death of Vance Triplett, one count of attempted murder arising out of the shooting of Ronald Green, and two counts of receiving stolen property; the court then returned its verdict finding him guilty of one count of having a weapon while under a disability. Bell appealed and our court affirmed his convictions but modified his sentence. The Ohio Supreme Court then dismissed his subsequent appeal for the reason that no substantial constitutional questions existed. Bell next filed a petition for post-conviction relief with the trial court, seeking an evidentiary hearing to set aside his convictions and sentence. The court denied that petition and issued findings of fact and conclusions of law. Now Bell again appeals to our court from this decision and presents the following assignments of error: I. -3- TRIAL COUNSEL ERRED WHEN HE PROMISING [sic] ONE WITNESS, CHARLSE [sic] PERRY THAT HE WOULD GET A LIGHTER SENTENCE IF HE DIDN'T TESTIFY ON DEFENDANT['s] BEHALF; II. TRIAL COUNSEL ERRED WHEN HE FAILED TO OBJECT TO DETECTIVE KALVITZ'S PRESENCE AT THE STATE'S TRIAL TABLE THROUGHOUT TRIAL; III. TRIAL COUNSEL ERRED WHEN HE REFUSED TO USE SUPPRESSION HEARING TESTIMONY TO IMPEACH RONALD GREENE; IV. TRIAL COUNSEL ERRED WHEN HE REFUSED TO ARGUE FOR SUPPRESSION OF PHOTOS CONFISCATED IN A PRIOR CASE; V. TRIAL COUNSEL ERRED WHEN HE FAILED TO MAKE AN OPENING STATEMENT AND REFUSED TO LET DEFENDANT MAKE ONE ON HIS OWN BEHALF; VI. TRIAL COUNSEL ERRED WHEN HE REFUSED TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO SEPARATE THE SHOOTING AND NON-SHOOTING CASES; Bell argues the trial court erred by refusing to grant his motion for post-conviction relief because his trial counsel failed to represent him effectively. The state argues the court did not err in denying this because Bell's claims are now barred by the doctrine of res judicata since he has already raised them on direct appeal from his original convictions. The issue then for our determination is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Bell's petition for post- conviction relief and whether it properly applied the doctrine of res judicata to this case. -4- In State v. Perry (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 175, the Ohio Supreme Court stated in paragraph nine of its syllabus: Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment of conviction bars a convicted defendant * * * from raising * * * any defense * * * that was raised or could have been raised by the defendant at the trial, which resulted in that judgment of conviction, or on an appeal from the judgment. Our examination of this court's decision in Bell's direct appeal, see State v. Bell (May 6, 1993), Cuyahoga App. No. 62325, unreported, reveals that we previously addressed Bell's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel at the time we ruled on his appeal. Therefore, these claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata, and the trial court properly denied Bell's petition for post-conviction relief. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Judgment affirmed. -5- It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant 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. JAMES M. PORTER, P.J., and MICHAEL J. CORRIGAN, J., CONCUR JUDGE TERRENCE O'DONNELL 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 .