State v. Rogers

[Cite as State v. Rogers, 2015-Ohio-3472.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 100248
STATE OF OHIO
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
vs.
ALFRED ROGERS
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
JUDGMENT:
APPLICATION DENIED
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CR-08-518986
Application for Reopening
Motion No. 486377
RELEASE DATE: August 25, 2015
FOR APPELLANT
Alfred Rogers, pro se
Inmate No. 574184
Southern Ohio Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 45699
Louisville, Ohio 45699
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. McGinty
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
By: Anthony Thomas Miranda
Assistant County Prosecutor
8th Floor Justice Center
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
LARRY A. JONES, SR., P.J.:
{¶1} Alfred Rogers has filed an application for reopening pursuant to App.R.
26(B). Rogers is attempting to reopen the appellate judgment rendered by this court in
State v. Rogers, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100248 (Aug. 13, 2013). For the following
reasons, Rogers’s application for reopening is not well taken.
{¶2} Initially, we find that App.R. 26(B) is not applicable to the facts pertinent to
the appeal in App. No. 100248. No appellate judgment, which reviewed Rogers’s plea
of guilty to the offense of involuntary manslaughter, has been announced and journalized
by this court. This court denied Rogers’s motion for a delayed appeal and dismissed the
appeal on September 3, 2013. Thus, we are prevented from considering Rogers’s
application for reopening. State v. Skaggs, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 76301, 1999 Ohio
App. LEXIS 4680 (Sept. 21, 1999). See also State v. Loomer, 76 Ohio St.3d 398, 667
N.E.2d 1209 (1996); State v. Halliwell, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 70369, 1999 Ohio App.
LEXIS 285 (Jan. 28, 1999); State v. Fields, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 68906, 1997 Ohio
App. LEXIS 4109 (Sept. 5, 1997); State v. Williams, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 69936, 1996
Ohio App. LEXIS 4796 (Oct. 31, 1996).
{¶3} Finally, even if Rogers were permitted to file an application for reopening,
App.R. 26(B)(2)(b) requires that Rogers establish a showing of good cause for untimely
filing if the application for reopening is filed more than 90 days after journalization of the
appellate judgment, which is subject to reopening. Herein, Rogers is attempting to
reopen the order of dismissal journalized on September 3, 2013. Rogers’s application for
reopening was not filed until June 9, 2015, more than 90 days after journalization of the
order of dismissal in App. No. 100248. Rogers has failed to establish good cause for the
untimely filing of his application for reopening. Thus, we would be required to deny his
application for reopening. State v. Gumm, 103 Ohio St.3d 162, 2004-Ohio-4755, 814
N.E.2d 861; State v. LaMar, 102 Ohio St.3d 467, 2004-Ohio-3976, 812 N.E.2d 970.
{¶4} Application for reopening is denied.
LARRY A. JONES, SR., PRESIDING JUDGE
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., and
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR