State v. Bonneau , 2013 Ohio 696 ( 2013 )

[Cite as State v. Bonneau, 2013-Ohio-696.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 97565
STATE OF OHIO
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
vs.
PAUL BONNEAU
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
JUDGMENT:
APPLICATION DENIED
Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court
Case No. CR-545066
Application for Reopening
Motion No. 457802
RELEASE DATE: February 26, 2013
[Cite as State v. Bonneau, 2013-Ohio-696.]
APPELLANT
Paul Bonneau
No. 620-230
Grafton Correctional Institution
2500 Avon Belden Road
Grafton, Ohio 44044
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. McGinty
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
By: Mark J. Mahoney
Assistant County Prosecutor
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
[Cite as State v. Bonneau, 2013-Ohio-696.]
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J.:
{¶1} On August 20, 2012, the applicant, Paul Bonneau, pursuant to App.R.
26(B), applied to reopen this court’s judgment in State v. Bonneau, 8th Dist. No. 97565,
2012-Ohio-3258, which affirmed Bonneau’s convictions for three counts of gross sexual
imposition and one count of kidnapping. Bonneau states that his appellate counsel was
ineffective because he did not raise issues that Bonneau wanted raised on appeal.
However, Bonneau does not state what those issues are, much less argue them.
{¶2} App.R. 26(B)(2)(c) requires that an application to reopen have “[o]ne or
more assignments of error that were not considered on the merits * * *.” Thus, the
failure to state any assignments of error is a sufficient reason for denying an application
to reopen. State v. Saunders, 8th Dist. No. 96643, 2010-Ohio-4586; and State v.
Jackson, 8th Dist. No. 88345, 2007-Ohio-5431. Without any proposed assignments of
error it is impossible to determine if a genuine issue exists as to whether the applicant was
deprived of the effective assistance of appellate counsel, as required by App.R. 26(B)(5).
[Cite as State v. Bonneau, 2013-Ohio-696.]
{¶3} Moreover, the lack of counsel, the lack of money for counsel, and the lack
of legal knowledge do not exempt an applicant from fulfilling the requirements for an
App.R. 26(B) application to reopen. In State v. Lamar, 102 Ohio St.3d 467,
2004-Ohio-3976, 812 N.E.2d 970, ¶9, the Supreme Court of Ohio noted that many Ohio
criminal defendants comply with the fundamental aspects of the rule despite lack of
resources. Therefore, an applicant may not plead lack of an attorney, lack of effort or
imagination, or ignorance of the law in failing to comply with the requirements of the
rule.
{¶4} Accordingly, this court denies the application to reopen.
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, JUDGE
MARY J. BOYLE, P.J., and
PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, J., CONCUR