State v. Goodykoontz , 2024 Ohio 2063 ( 2024 )

[Cite as State v. Goodykoontz, 2024-Ohio-2063.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
STATE OF OHIO, :
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
No. 112016
v. :
DAVID GOODYKOONTZ, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: APPLICATION DENIED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: May 28, 2024
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case Nos. CR-19-641800-A and CR-20-647818-A
Application for Reopening
Motion No. 572997
Appearances:
Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Cuyahoga
Prosecuting Attorney, and Sarah E. Hutnik, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
David Goodykoontz, pro se.
EMANUELLA D. GROVES, J.:
David Goodykoontz has filed an application for reopening pursuant to
App.R. 26(B). Goodykoontz is attempting to reopen the appellate judgment
rendered in State v. Goodykoontz, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 112016, 2023-Ohio-3243that affirmed his convictions and sentences imposed in Case No. CR-19-641800-A,
gross sexual imposition, and Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-20-647818-A, multiple counts
of pandering sexually oriented matter involving a minor, illegal use of a minor in
nudity-oriented material or performance, and possession of criminal tools. We
decline to reopen Goodykoontz’s appeal.
App.R. 26(B)(2)(b) requires that Goodykoontz establish “a showing of
good cause for untimely filing if the application is filed more than 90 days after
journalization of the appellate judgment” that is subject to reopening. The Supreme
Court of Ohio, with regard to the 90-day deadline provided by App.R. 26(B)(2)(b),
has established that
[w]e 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, ¶ 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, 653 N.E.2d 252 (1995); State v.
Reddick, 72 Ohio St.3d 88, 647 N.E.2d 784 (1995).
Herein, Goodykoontz is attempting to reopen the appellate judgment
that was journalized on September 14, 2023. The application for reopening was not
filed until March 18, 2024, more than 90 days after journalization of the appellate
judgment in Goodykoontz, supra. Goodykoontz, in an effort to establish good cause
for the untimely filing of his application for reopening, argues that he was unable to
access the prison law library to complete his application for reopening and timely
file it within 90-days of journalization of the appellate judgment subject to
reopening.
Goodykoontz has not established a valid basis for the untimely filing of
his App.R. 26(B) application for reopening. This court has repeatedly rejected the
claim that limited access to legal materials or the prison law library states good cause
for untimely filing. State v. Martin, 7th Dist. Columbiana No. 18-CO-0033, 2021-
Ohio-4290; State v. Howard, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 107467, 107468, and 107469,
2020-Ohio-4739; State v. Onunwor, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 93937, 2010-Ohio-
Ohio-5587. Further, prison riots, lockdowns, and other library limitations have
been rejected as constituting good cause. State v. Kaszas, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos.
72546 and 72547, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 4227 (Sept. 21, 1988), reopening
disallowed (Aug. 14, 2000), Motion No. 16752, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 3755; State
v. Hickman, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 72341, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 1893 (Apr. 30,
1998), reopening disallowed (Dec. 13, 2000), Motion No. 20830; State v. Turner,
8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 55960 (Nov. 16, 1989), reopening disallowed (Aug. 20,
2001), Motion No. 23221; and State v. Stearns, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 76513, 2000
Ohio App. LEXIS 3161 (July 24, 2000), reopening disallowed (Feb. 14,
2002), Motion No. 27761, 2002 Ohio App. LEXIS 770.
Also, in State v. Lamar, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 49550 and 49551,
1985 Ohio App. LEXIS 7284 (Oct. 3, 1985), reopening disallowed (Nov. 15, 1995),
Motion No. 63398, this court held that lack of communication with appellate
counsel did not show good cause. See also State v. Jarrells, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.
99329, 2014-Ohio-4564. Similarly, in State v. White, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 57944,
1991 Ohio App. LEXIS 357 (Jan. 31, 1991), reopening disallowed (Oct. 19, 1994),
Motion No. 49174 and State v. Allen, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 65806, 1994 Ohio App.
LEXIS 4956 (Nov. 3, 1994), reopening disallowed (July 8, 1996), Motion No. 67054,
wherein this court rejected reliance on counsel as showing good cause. In State v.
Fortson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 72229, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 6104 (Dec. 17, 1998),
reopening disallowed (Jan. 23, 2001), Motion No. 18195, 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS
245, this court ruled that an attorney’s delay in notification of an appellate decision
does not establish good cause. See also State v. Congress, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.
102867, 2018-Ohio-4521; State v. Moss, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 62318 and 62322,
1993 Ohio App. LEXIS 2491 (May 13, 1993), reopening disallowed (Jan. 16, 1997),
Motion No. 75838; State v. McClain, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 67785, 1995 Ohio App.
LEXIS 3207 (Aug. 3, 1995), reopening disallowed (Apr. 15, 1997), Motion No. 76811;
and State v. Russell, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 69311, 1996 Ohio App. LEXIS 1879(May 9, 1996), reopening disallowed (June 16, 1997), Motion No. 82351, 1997 Ohio
App. LEXIS 2663.
It must also be noted that lack of knowledge or ignorance of the law
does not provide sufficient cause for the untimely filing of an application for
reopening. State v. Klein, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 58389, 1991 Ohio App. LEXIS
1346 (Apr. 8, 1991), reopening disallowed (Mar. 15, 1994), Motion No. 49260, aff’d,
69 Ohio St. 3d 1481, 634 N.E.2d 1027 (1994); State v. Trammell, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga
No. 67834, 1995 Ohio App. LEXIS 2962 (July 24, 1995), reopening disallowed (Apr.
22, 1996), Motion No. 70493; State v. Cummings, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 69966,
1996 Ohio App. LEXIS 4565 (Oct. 17, 1996), reopening disallowed (Mar. 26, 1998),
Motion No. 92134; and State v. Young, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 66768 and 66769,
1994 Ohio App. LEXIS 4634 (Oct. 13, 1994), reopening disallowed (Dec. 5, 1995),
Motion No. 66164.
Accordingly, we find that Goodykoontz has failed to establish good
cause for the untimely filing of his application for reopening.
Application denied.
EMANUELLA D. GROVES, JUDGE
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, P.J., and
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR