State v. Johnson

[Cite as State v. Johnson, 2013-Ohio-4590.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 97327
STATE OF OHIO
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
vs.
ZANE JOHNSON
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
JUDGMENT:
APPLICATION DENIED
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CR-543503
Application for Reopening
Motion No. 468476
RELEASE DATE: October 11, 2013
FOR APPELLANT
Zane Johnson, pro se
Inmate No. 603-209
Toledo Correctional Institution
2001 East Central Avenue
Toledo, Ohio 43608
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. McGinty
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
BY: Kevin R. Filiatraut
Assistant County Prosecutor
8th Floor Justice Center
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., P.J.:
{¶1} Zane Johnson has filed an application for reopening pursuant to App.R.
26(B). Johnson is attempting to reopen the appellate judgment, as rendered in State v.
Johnson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 97327, 2012-Ohio-2764, which affirmed his conviction
for the offense of aggravated murder with a three-year firearm specification. 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” 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 recently established:
We now reject [the applicant’s] claim that those excuses gave him
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.
State v. Gumm, 103 Ohio St.3d 162, 2004-Ohio-4755, 814 N.E.2d 861, ¶ 7-8. 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).
{¶3} Herein, Johnson is attempting to reopen the appellate judgment that was
journalized on June 21, 2012. The application for reopening was not filed until
September 19, 2013; more than 90 days after journalization of the appellate judgment in
State v. Johnson, supra. Johnson has failed to establish “a showing of good cause” for
the untimely filing of his application for reopening. State v. Klein, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.
58389, 1991 Ohio App. LEXIS 1346 (Mar. 28, 1991), reopening disallowed (Mar. 15,
1994), Motion No. 249260, 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 13, 1995),
reopening disallowed (Apr. 22, 1996), Motion No. 270493; State v. Travis, 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 56825, 1990 Ohio App. LEXIS 1356 (Apr. 5, 1990), reopening
disallowed (Nov. 2, 1994), Motion No. 251073, aff’d, 72 Ohio St.3d 317, 649 N.E.2d
1226 (1995). See also State v. Gaston, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 79626, 2007-Ohio-155;
State v. Torres, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 86530, 2007-Ohio-9.
{¶4} Accordingly, the application for reopening is denied.
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., PRESIDING JUDGE
KENNETH A. ROCCO, J., and
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR