My question involves criminal law for the state of: Ohio
I'm filing a Murnahan appeal under 26(B), pro se, and have a question regarding the application of res judicata. My former counsel raised a winning argument, but failed to properly present it by devoting a mere two paragraphs to the applicable facts in the record, with no meaningful analysis nor citation to case law tending to show how the trial court erred and abused its discretion. The appeal was denied, in a short 3-page decision with virtually no analysis of the facts or application of law to those facts.
If found that the Murnahan court focused on doing justice, going so far as to limit the application of res judicata if it would be unjust, and I'm seeking an opinion from attorneys or paralegals with experience in this subject matter on their thoughts on how to convince the appellate court to find res judicata does not apply in this instance. I'm aware that this would be considered a "second bite of the apple," but failure to consider the proper presentation of the argument would create a manifest injustice.
I'm filing a Murnahan appeal under 26(B), pro se, and have a question regarding the application of res judicata. My former counsel raised a winning argument, but failed to properly present it by devoting a mere two paragraphs to the applicable facts in the record, with no meaningful analysis nor citation to case law tending to show how the trial court erred and abused its discretion. The appeal was denied, in a short 3-page decision with virtually no analysis of the facts or application of law to those facts.
If found that the Murnahan court focused on doing justice, going so far as to limit the application of res judicata if it would be unjust, and I'm seeking an opinion from attorneys or paralegals with experience in this subject matter on their thoughts on how to convince the appellate court to find res judicata does not apply in this instance. I'm aware that this would be considered a "second bite of the apple," but failure to consider the proper presentation of the argument would create a manifest injustice.
Post-Conviction Relief: Appellate Rule 26(B) Application for Reopening Due to Ineffective Assistance
0 commentaires:
Enregistrer un commentaire