State v. Anderson

[Cite as State v. Anderson, 2013-Ohio-1335.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 92576
STATE OF OHIO
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
vs.
LATANGIA ANDERSON
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
JUDGMENT:
APPLICATION DENIED
Application for Reopening
Motion No. 463329
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CR-510427
RELEASE DATE: April 2, 2013
FOR APPELLANT
LaTangia Anderson, pro se
Inmate No. WO73786
Ohio Reformatory For Women
1479 Collins Avenue
Marysville, Ohio 43040
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. McGinty
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
By: Katherine Mullin
Assistant County Prosecutor
8th Floor Justice Center
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J.:
{¶1} On March 18, 2013, the applicant, LaTangia Anderson, pursuant to App.R.
26(B) and State v. Murnahan, 63 Ohio St.3d 60, 584 N.E.2d 1204 (1992), applied to
reopen this court’s judgment in State v. Anderson, 8th Dist. No. 92576, 2010-Ohio-2085,
that affirmed Anderson’s conviction for murder, but remanded to the trial court to correct
the sentencing entry by deleting references to postrelease control. 1 Anderson now
argues that her appellate counsel was ineffective for not arguing that the trial court erred
when it entered judgment on a guilty plea without establishing that there was a factual
basis for the plea. For the following reasons, this court denies the application, sua
sponte.
{¶2} App.R. 26(B)(1) and (2)(b) require applications claiming ineffective
assistance of appellate counsel to be filed within 90 days from journalization of the
decision unless the applicant shows good cause for filing at a later time. The March
2013 application was filed approximately three years after this court’s decision. Thus, it
is untimely on its face. Anderson makes no proffer of good cause. The Supreme
Court of Ohio in State v. LaMar, 102 Ohio St.3d 467, 2004-Ohio-3976, 812 N.E.2d 970,
1
Anderson pleaded guilty to murder, and the court sentenced her to 15 years to life and also
imposed five years of postrelease control. Appellate counsel argued that the guilty plea was not
knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily given; that the trial court erred in denying her motion to
withdraw the guilty plea; and that the trial court erred in using an electronic signature.
and State v. Gumm, 103 Ohio St.3d 162, 2004-Ohio-4755, 814 N.E.2d 861, held that the
90-day deadline for filing must be strictly enforced.
{¶3} Accordingly, with no proffered reason for good cause, this court denies the
application to reopen.
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, JUDGE
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, P.J., and
TIM McCORMACK, J., CONCUR