State v. Bartoe ( 2012 )

[Cite as State v. Bartoe, 2012-Ohio-154.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 95286
STATE OF OHIO
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
vs.
JACOB BARTOE
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
JUDGMENT:
APPLICATION DENIED
Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court
Case No.CR-529964
Application for Reopening
Motion No. 446562
RELEASE DATE: January 17, 2012
FOR APPELLANT
Jacob Bartoe
Inmate No. 584382
North Central Correctional Inst.
P. O. Box 1812
Marion, Ohio 43302
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
William D. Mason
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
By: Daniel T. Van
Justice Center, 8th Fl.
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, OH 44113
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, P.J.:
{¶ 1} In State v. Bartoe, Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CR-529964, applicant, Jacob Bartoe, was convicted of two counts of
aggravated robbery and two counts of kidnapping, each with firearm and
forfeiture specifications. For the purpose of sentencing, the state elected to
go forward on one count of aggravated robbery. This court affirmed that
judgment in State v. Bartoe, 8th Dist. No. 95286, 2011-Ohio-2521.
{¶ 2} Although Bartoe argues that there is good cause for the untimely
filing of his application, he has filed with the clerk of this court a timely
application for reopening. We deny the application for reopening. As
required by App.R. 26(B)(6), the reasons for our denial follow.
{¶ 3} Bartoe’s application does not contain “[o]ne or more assignments
of error or arguments in support of assignments of error that previously were
not considered on the merits in the case by any appellate court or that were
considered on an incomplete record because of appellate counsel’s deficient
representation” as required by App.R. 26(B)(2)(c). It is well established that
the failure to state assignments of error is a sufficient ground for denying an
application for reopening. See, e.g., State v. Fryerson, 8th Dist. No. 91960,
2009-Ohio-4227, reopening disallowed, 2010-Ohio-1852, ¶ 8.
{¶ 4} Additionally, Bartoe did not support his application with a sworn
statement as required by App.R. 26(B)(2)(d). The failure to support an
application for reopening with a sworn statement is a ground for denying the
application. See, e.g., State v. Thomas, 8th Dist. No. 94042, 2010-Ohio-5237,
reopening disallowed, 2011-Ohio-6070.
{¶ 5} As a consequence, Bartoe has not met the standard for reopening.
Accordingly, the application for reopening is denied.
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, PRESIDING JUDGE
PATRICIA A. BLACKMON, A.J., AND
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR