State v. Dodson ( 2014 )

[Cite as State v. Dodson, 2014-Ohio-4197.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 98521
STATE OF OHIO
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
vs.
JEFFREY DODSON
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
JUDGMENT:
APPLICATION DENIED
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CR-11-555731
Application for Reopening
Motion No. 476756
RELEASE DATE: September 23, 2014
FOR APPELLANT
Jeffrey Dodson, pro se
Inmate No. 623-109
Belmont Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 540
St. Clairsville, Ohio 43950
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. McGinty
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
BY: Jesse W. Canonico
Brett Hammond
Assistant County Prosecutors
The Justice Center, 8th Floor
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
LARRY A. JONES, SR., J.:
{¶1} Jeffrey Dodson has filed an application for reopening pursuant to App.R.
26(B). Dodson is attempting to reopen the appellate judgment, rendered in State v.
Dodson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98521, 2013-Ohio-1344, that affirmed the sentence of
incarceration in part, imposed in State v. Dodson, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-11-555731,
vacated the sentence in part, and remanded for resentencing. We decline to reopen
Dodson’s appeal.
{¶2} App.R. 26(B)(2)(b) requires that Dodson establish “a showing of good cause
for untimely filing if the application is filed more than 90 days after journalization of the
appellate judgment,” which is subject to reopening. The Supreme Court of Ohio, with
regard to the 90-day deadline as provided by App.R. 26(B)(2)(b), has established that:
We now reject [the applicant’s] claims that those excuses gave good cause
to miss the 90-day deadline in App.R. 26(B).* * * Consistent enforcement
of the rule’s deadline by the appellate courts in Ohio protects on the one
hand the state’s legitimate interest in the finality of its judgments and
ensures on the other hand that any claims of ineffective assistance of
appellate counsel are promptly examined and resolved.
Ohio and other states “may erect reasonable procedural requirements for
triggering the right to an adjudication,” Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co.
(1982), 455 U.S. 422, 437, 102 S. Ct. 1148, 71 L. Ed. 2d 265, and that is what
Ohio has done by creating a 90- day deadline for the filing of applications
to reopen. * * * The 90-day requirement in the rule is applicable to all
appellants, State v. Winstead (1996), 74 Ohio St. 3d 277, 278, 658 N.E.2d
722, and [the applicant] offers no sound reason why he — unlike so many
other Ohio criminal defendants — could not comply with that fundamental
aspect of the rule. (Emphasis added.) State v. Gumm, 103 Ohio St. 3d 162,
2004-Ohio-4755, 814 N.E.2d 861, at ¶ 7. See also, State v. Lamar, 102
Ohio St. 3d 467, 2004-Ohio-3976, 812 N.E.2d 970; State v. Cooey, 73 Ohio
St.3d 411, 1995-Ohio-328, 653 N.E.2d 252; State v. Reddick, 72 Ohio St. 3d
88, 1995-Ohio-248, 647 N.E.2d 784.
See also State v. LaMar, 102 Ohio St. 3d 467, 2004-Ohio-3976, 812 N.E.2d 970; State v.
Cooey, 73 Ohio St. 3d 411, 1995-Ohio-328, 653 N.E.2d 252; State v. Reddick, 72 Ohio
St.3d 88, 1995-Ohio-249, 647 N.E.2d 784.
{¶3} Herein, Dodson is attempting to reopen the appellate judgment that was
journalized on April 4, 2013. The application for reopening was not filed until July 16,
2014, more than 90 days after journalization of the appellate judgment in State v. Dodson,
supra.
{¶4} Dodson argues that because “[he] is pro se and is not an attorney and it can be
seen that on that basis the error in not filing the App.R. 26(B) petition in a timely manner
is a genuine misunderstanding of the procedural requirements,” “good cause” exists for
the untimely filing of his application for reopening. This court has long held that lack of
legal counsel, when attempting to file an App.R. 26(B) application for reopening, does
not establish “good cause” for filing beyond the ninety day limitation. State v. Hornack,
8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 81021, 2005-Ohio-5843. See also State v. Lamar, supra.
Difficulty in conducting legal research or limited access to legal materials does not
establish “good cause” for the untimely filing of an application for reopening. State v.
Houston, 73 Ohio St. 3d 346, 1995-Ohio-317, 652 N.E.2d 1018; State v. Kinder, 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 94722, 2012-Ohio-1339; State v. Lawson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 84402,
2006-Ohio-3939. Finally, a lack of legal training, effort or imagination, and ignorance
of the law do not establish “good cause” for failure to seek timely relief pursuant to
App.R. 26(B). State v. Farrow, 115 Ohio St. 3d 205, 2007-Ohio-4792, 874 N.E.2d 526,
citing State v. Winstead, 74 Ohio St. 3d 277, 1996-Ohio-52, 658 N.E.2d 722. Herein,
Dodson has failed to establish “a showing of good cause” for the untimely filing of his
application for reopening, premised upon lack of legal counsel, lack of legal training,
ignorance of the law, and limited access to legal materials.
{¶5} Accordingly, the application for reopening is denied.
LARRY A. JONES, SR., JUDGE
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., P.J., and
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., CONCUR