State v. Crain

[Cite as State v. Crain, 2012-Ohio-1340.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
Nos. 95012, 95013, 95014, and 95015
STATE OF OHIO
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
vs.
CHRISTOPHER CRAIN
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
JUDGMENT:
APPLICATION DENIED
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case Nos. CR-522284, CR-528311,
CR-529763, and CR-532481
Application for Reopening
Motion No. 451537
RELEASE DATE: March 28, 2012
FOR APPELLANT
Christopher Crain, pro se
Inmate No. 583024
Mansfield Correctional Institution
P. O. Box 788
Mansfield, OH 44901
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
William D. Mason
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
By: Matthew E. Meyer
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
The Justice Center, 9th Floor
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, OH 44113
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J.:
{¶1} In State v. Crain, Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case Nos.
CR-522284, CR-528311, CR-529763, and CR-532481, applicant pled guilty to a
trafficking offense, aggravated theft, having a weapon while under disability and robbery.
This court affirmed that judgment in State v. Crain, 8th Dist. Nos. 95012, 95013, 95014
and 95015, 2011-Ohio-1924.
{¶2} Crain has filed with the clerk of this court an application for reopening. He
asserts that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel because appellate
counsel failed to assign as error that trial counsel was ineffective. 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 applicant’s conviction was journalized on
April 21, 2011. The application was filed on January 23, 2012, clearly in excess of the
ninety-day limit.
{¶5} Crain contends that he has good cause for the delay in filing his application
for reopening. He states that, due to state budget cuts, the law library in the institution
has been closed “for a time and more often than normal due to personell [sic] shortage.”
Application for Reopening, at 1.
{¶6} This court has already rejected the argument that budget cutbacks resulting in
limited access to a prison library and legal materials constitutes good cause. See State v.
Benson, 8th Dist. No. 87655, 2007-Ohio-830, reopening disallowed, 2008-Ohio-4701.
We must conclude, therefore, that Crain has failed to demonstrate good cause for the
delay in filing his application for reopening. The application is untimely.
{¶7} 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). 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. Crain’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.
As a consequence, Crain has not met the standard for reopening. Accordingly,
the application for reopening is denied.
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, JUDGE
LARRY A. JONES, SR., P.J., and
KENNETH A. ROCCO, J., CONCUR