State v. Johnson

[Cite as State v. Johnson, 2014-Ohio-2972.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 46837
STATE OF OHIO
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
vs.
RICKY JOHNSON
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
JUDGMENT:
APPLICATION DENIED
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CR-81-164134-ZA
Application for Reopening
Motion No. 475418
RELEASE DATE: June 30, 2014
FOR APPELLANT
Ricky Johnson, pro se
Inmate No. 630-539
N.C.C.I.
P.O. Box 1812
Marion, Ohio 43302
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. McGinty
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
8th Floor Justice Center
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J.:
{¶1} Ricky Johnson, a.k.a. Rodney Knuckles, has filed an application for
reopening pursuant to App.R. 26(B). Johnson is attempting to reopen the appellate
judgment, rendered in State v. Johnson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 46837, 1983 Ohio App.
LEXIS 13810 (Dec. 8, 1983), which affirmed his conviction for the offense of murder.
We decline to reopen Johnson’s appeal.
{¶2} App.R. 26(B)(2)(b) requires that Johnson 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; and State v. Reddick, 72
Ohio St.3d 88, 1995-Ohio-249, 647 N.E.2d 784.
{¶3} Herein, Johnson is attempting to reopen the appellate judgment that was
journalized on December 8, 1983. The application for reopening was not filed until
June 2, 2014, more than 90 days after journalization of the appellate judgment in Johnson,
supra.
{¶4} Johnson has failed to argue or establish a showing of good cause for the
untimely filing of his application for reopening. State v. Kinder, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.
94722, 2012-Ohio-1339. See also Lamar, supra; and State v. Davis, 86 Ohio St.3d 212,
1999-Ohio-160, 714 N.E.2d 384. Reddick, supra. See also State v. Klein, 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 58389, 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. Travis, 8th
Dist. Cuyahoga No. 56825, 1990 Ohio App. LEXIS 1356 (Apr. 5, 1990), reopening
disallowed (Nov. 2, 1994), Motion No. 51073, aff’d, 72 Ohio St.3d 317, 1995-Ohio-152,
649 N.E.2d 1226; State v. Gaston, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 79626, 2007-Ohio-155; and
State v. Torres, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 86530, 2007-Ohio-9.
{¶5} Accordingly, the application for reopening is denied.
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, JUDGE
MARY J. BOYLE, A.J., and
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR