State v. Douglas

[Cite as State v. Douglas, 2012-Ohio-3799.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 91029
STATE OF OHIO
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
vs.
ALDEN DOUGLAS
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
JUDGMENT:
APPLICATION DENIED
Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court
Case No. CR-449904
Application for Reopening
Motion No. 454809
RELEASE DATE: August 17, 2012
FOR APPELLANT
Douglas Alden, pro se
Inmate No. 481-594
Marion Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 57
Marion, Ohio 43302
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
William D. Mason
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
By: Mark J. Mahoney
Assistant County Prosecutor
9th Floor Justice Center
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
MARY J. BOYLE, P.J.:
{¶1} In State v. Douglas, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-449904, applicant, Alden
Douglas, was convicted of two counts of felonious assault. This court affirmed his
resentencing in State v. Douglas, 8th Dist. No. 91029, 2009-Ohio-1068. The Supreme
Court of Ohio denied Douglas’s motion for leave to appeal and dismissed the appeal as
not involving any substantial constitutional question. State v. Douglas, 122 Ohio St.3d
1481, 2009-Ohio-3625, 910 N.E.2d 479.
{¶2} Douglas has filed with the clerk of this court an application for reopening.
He asserts that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel. We deny the
application for reopening. As required by App.R. 26(B)(6), the reasons for our denial
follow.
{¶3} Initially, we note that App.R. 26(B)(1) provides, in part: “An application
for reopening shall be filed * * * within ninety days from journalization of the appellate
judgment unless the applicant shows good cause for filing at a later time.” App.R.
26(B)(2)(b) requires that an application for reopening include “a showing of good cause
for untimely filing if the application is filed more than ninety days after journalization of
the appellate judgment.”
{¶4} This court’s decision affirming Douglas’s conviction was journalized on
March 23, 2009. The application was filed on May 7, 2012, clearly in excess of the
90-day limit. Douglas does not argue or demonstrate good cause for the untimely filing
of his application for reopening. Compare State v. Welch, 8th Dist. No. 95577,
2012-Ohio-3351 (denying an application for reopening as untimely when the applicant
failed to argue or establish good cause under App.R. 26(B)(2)(b)).
{¶5} The Supreme Court has upheld judgments denying applications for
reopening solely on the basis that the application was not timely filed and the applicant
failed to show “good cause for filing at a later time.” App.R. 26(B)(1). See, e.g., State
v. Gumm, 103 Ohio St.3d 162, 2004-Ohio-4755, 814 N.E.2d 861, and State v. LaMar, 102
Ohio St.3d 467, 2004-Ohio-3976, 812 N.E.2d 970. Applicant’s failure to demonstrate
good cause is a sufficient basis for denying the application for reopening. See, e.g.,
State v. Almashni, 8th Dist. No. 92237, 2010-Ohio-898, reopening disallowed,
2012-Ohio-349.
{¶6} We also note that Douglas did not support his application with a sworn
statement as required by App.R. 26(B)(2)(d). See, e.g., State v. Bartoe, 8th Dist. No.
95286, 2012-Ohio-154. Additionally, Douglas represented himself in his direct appeal
in Appeal No. 91029. “A defendant who represents himself or herself on direct appeal,
however, may not maintain an application for reopening. State v. Gaston, Cuyahoga
App. No. 92242, 2009-Ohio-3080, reopening disallowed, 2009-Ohio-4715.” State v.
Effinger, 8th Dist. No. 93450, 2009-Ohio-5242, ¶ 4.
{¶7} As a consequence, Douglas has not met the standard for reopening.
{¶8} Accordingly, the application for reopening is denied.
_______________________________________
MARY J. BOYLE, PRESIDING JUDGE
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J., and
LARRY A. JONES, SR., J., CONCUR