State v. Riddle

[Cite as State v. Riddle, 2022-Ohio-3030.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
STATE OF OHIO, :
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
No. 90999
v. :
JAMES RIDDLE, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: APPLICATION DENIED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: August 31, 2022
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CR-07-499635-A
Application for Reopening
Motion No. 557311
Appearances:
Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
Attorney, for appellee.
Christopher McNeal, for appellant.
MARY J. BOYLE, P.J.:
On August 12, 2022, the applicant, James Riddle, pursuant to App.R.
26(B), applied to reopen this court’s judgment in State v. Riddle, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga
No. 90999, 2009-Ohio-348, in which this court affirmed his convictions for
attempted rape and kidnapping and his classification as a Tier III sex offender.
Riddle asserts that his appellate counsel should have argued that the convictions
were not supported by sufficient evidence and were against the manifest weight of
the evidence. For the following reasons, this court denies the application, sua
sponte.
In June 2007, Riddle entered a laundromat early in the morning and
asked the victim, who worked there, if he could use the restroom, which she
unlocked for him. A few moments later, he came out and told her there was
something wrong with the facilities. When she entered the restroom, Riddle
attacked her. He pushed her down to the floor, tried to pull her pants down, and
undid his belt buckle. He then tried to kiss her and said, “You are going to like it.”
She fought back, bit his lip, and asked him, “What are you doing with an old lady?
I’m 61 ******* years old.” He then ran out of the laundromat.
The jury found him guilty of attempted rape and kidnapping. The
trial judge found him guilty of the sexually violent predator specifications, classified
him as a Tier III sex offender, and sentenced him to 18 years to life in prison.
Ripple’s appellate counsel argued that the Adam Walsh Act, under
which he was classified as a sexual predator, was unconstitutional and that the
indictment for kidnapping was defective. Now Ripple argues the convictions were
not supported by sufficient evidence and were against the manifest weight of the
evidence because there was no sexual contact, Ripple abandoned what he was doing,
and he left the victim where she was.
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 August
2022 application was filed over 13 years after this court’s January 29, 2009 decision.
Thus, it is untimely on its face. In an effort to establish good cause, Riddle argues
that his cognitive deficit and substance abuse precluded him from filing a timely
application, as well as the failure of his appellate counsel to inform him of the
outcome of the appeal.
These arguments are unpersuasive. Generally, reliance on counsel
does not establish good cause for filing an untimely application to reopen. State v.
Van Horn, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98751, 2021-Ohio-4129. Specifically, the failure
of appellate counsel to inform an applicant in a timely manner of the outcome of his
appeal does not constitute good cause. State v. Mitchell, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.
88977, 2009-Ohio-1874, and State v. Alt, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 96289, 2012-
Ohio-2054.
Riddle proffered an unsupported affidavit claiming learning
disabilities, low IQ, and substance abuse to establish good cause. However, in State
v. Gilbert, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 90856, 2010-Ohio-4103, ¶ 3, this court held “that
a self-serving affidavit pleading medical incapacity does not show good cause for
untimely filing.” It would be all too easy for a petitioner to claim a medical excuse
to show good cause. Therefore, “a claim of medical incapacity without some
supporting records to substantiate the medical condition, e.g., prison medical
records, is not sufficient to show good cause.” State v. Morris, 10th Dist. Franklin
No. 05AP-1032, 2010-Ohio-786.
Moreover, these excuses do not explain the lapse of over 13 years. In
State v. Davis, 86 Ohio St.3d 212, 214, 714 N.E.2d 384 (1999), the Supreme Court
of Ohio addressed a similar long lapse of time in filing the App.R. 26(B) application
and ruled: “Even if we were to find good cause of earlier failures to file, any such
good cause ‘has long since evaporated. Good cause can excuse the lack of a filing
only while it exists, not for an indefinite period.’ State v. Fox, 83 Ohio St.3d 514,
516, 1998-Ohio-517, 700 N.E.2d 1253, 1254.”
Accordingly, this court denies the application.
MARY J. BOYLE, PRESIDING JUDGE
ANITA LASTER MAYS, J., and
FRANK DANIEL CELEBREZZE, III, J., CONCUR