State v. Catron ( 2022 )

[Cite as State v. Catron, 2022-Ohio-4503.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
STATE OF OHIO, :
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
v. : No. 101839
JONATHAN F. CATRON, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: APPLICATION DENIED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: December 9, 2022
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CR-13-576819-A,
Application for Reopening
Motion No. 559163
Appearances:
Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
Attorney, and Sarah E. Hutnik, Assistant Prosecuting
Attorney, for appellee.
Jonathan F. Catron, pro se.
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, A.J.:
Applicant, Jonathan F. Catron, seeks to reopen his appeal in State v.
Catron, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 101839, 2015-Ohio-1836. Catron claims that
appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to argue that trial counsel was ineffective
for several reasons. The application fails to set forth good cause for the more than
seven-year delay in filing and is procedurally defective. As a result, it is denied.
Catron and his half-brother engaged in a dispute that resulted in the
exchange of gunfire. A neighbor, James Swindler III, was struck by a stray bullet
and killed. Catron and his brother were charged and convicted of murder, among
other crimes, for which Catron received an indefinite term of incarceration of 21
years to life.
Catron appealed his convictions and sentences to this court. There,
he raised six assignments of error: joinder of his trial with that of his codefendant,
manifest weight, a flight instruction given to the jury, merger of allied offenses,
consecutive sentences, and ineffective assistance of counsel in relation to three of
the assigned errors raised. Id.This court, in an opinion journalized on May 14, 2015, overruled these
assigned errors and affirmed Catron’s convictions and sentences. Catron, 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 101839, 2015-Ohio-1836, at ¶ 18. Catron sought review of this
decision by the Supreme Court of Ohio, but it declined further review. 09/30/2015
Case Announcements, 143 Ohio St.3d 1480, 2015-Ohio-3958, 38 N.E.3d 901.
On October 25, 2022, Catron filed the instant application to reopen
his 2015 appeal. There, he argued that appellate counsel was ineffective, asserting
three proposed assignments of error. Catron also argued that he had good cause for
the untimely filing of his application to reopen. The state timely opposed the
application and filed a separate motion to strike several pages from the application
because it exceeded the page limit set forth in App.R. 26(B)(4). In its opposition to
the application, the state also argued that Catron failed to show good cause for the
delayed filing and the application failed on the merits.
App.R. 26(B) provides a limited right to reopen an appeal based on
ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The application shall be granted if “there
is a genuine issue as to whether the applicant was deprived of the effective assistance
of counsel on appeal.” App.R. 26(B)(5). “Claims of ineffective assistance of
appellate counsel under App.R. 26(B) are subject to the two-pronged analysis
enunciated in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d
674 (1984).” State v. Leyh, 166 Ohio St.3d 365, 2022-Ohio-292, 185 N.E.3d 1075,
¶ 17.
In accordance with the Strickland analysis, an applicant must show
that (1) appellate counsel’s performance was objectively
unreasonable, [Strickland] at 687, and (2) there is “a reasonable
probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of
the proceeding would have been different,” [Strickland] at 694. See
Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259, 285-286, 120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d
756 (2000). “A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to
undermine confidence in the outcome.” Strickland at 694.
Id. at ¶ 18. The rule also requires a timely application filed within 90 days of the
date of journalization of the appellate judgment. App.R. 26(B)(1). Where an
individual seeks to reopen an appeal beyond that deadline, the applicant is
required to show good cause for the delay. App.R. 26(B)(2)(b).
Catron’s application was filed more than seven years after the
journalization of the appellate decision he seeks to reopen. Therefore, he must
establish good cause to excuse this delay.
Here, Catron asserts that he was unaware of the procedure for
reopening until 2022 when someone conducting legal research on his behalf
informed him of the process for reopening. This court has held numerous times that
ignorance of the process for reopening an appeal does not constitute good cause.
E.g., State v. Tomlinson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109614, 2022-Ohio-2575. Further,
not being trained in the law does not constitute good cause. An applicant “cannot
rely on his own alleged lack of legal training to excuse his failure to comply with the
deadline.” State v. Farrow, 115 Ohio St.3d 205, 2007-Ohio-4792, 874 N.E.2d 526,
¶ 6.
Catron has failed to show good cause necessary to excuse the
significant delay in the filing of his application. Therefore, it must be denied.
Further, the application Catron has filed is procedurally defective.
App.R. 26(B)(4) limits an application for reopening to ten pages. Catron has filed a
17-page application exclusive of any affidavits or evidence in support. “Exceeding
the ten-page limitation of App.R. 26(B)(4) constitutes a valid basis for the denial of”
an application for reopening. State v. Churn, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 105782, 2019-
Ohio-4052, ¶ 8, citing, e.g., State v. Murawski, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 70854,
2002-Ohio-3631; State v. Caldwell, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 44360, 2002-Ohio-
2751.
Catron’s untimely application for reopening fails to set forth good
cause to excuse the delayed filing and is procedurally defective. For these reasons,
it is denied.
Application denied.
____________________________________
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, P.J., and
ANITA LASTER MAYS, J., CONCUR