STATE OF OHIO v. JOHN BROOKS
No. 94978
Court of Appeals of Ohio, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
March 7, 2012
2012-Ohio-915
Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, Case No. CR-509212; Application for Reopening; Motion Nos. 446035, 446222 and 446223
JUDGMENT: APPLICATION DENIED
John S. Brooks, pro se
Inmate No. 582-900
Marion Correctional Inst.
P. O. Box 57
Marion, OH 43301
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
William D. Mason
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
By: Kristen L. Sobieski
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
The Justice Center, 8th Floor
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, OH 44113
{¶1} In State v. Brooks, Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-509212, applicant was convicted of drug trafficking and possession as well as weapons charges and possession of criminal tools. This court affirmed that judgment in State v. Brooks, 8th Dist. No. 94978, 2011-Ohio-1679. The Supreme Court of Ohio denied Brooks‘s pro se motion for delayed appeal and dismissed the appeal. State v. Brooks, 129 Ohio St.3d 1447, 2011-Ohio-4217, 951 N.E.2d 1044.
{¶2} Brooks 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 his appellate counsel did not assign as error the ineffectiveness of trial counsel because trial counsel did not challenge the propriety of the search and did not object to the admission of certain exhibits. We deny the application for reopening. As required by
{¶3} Initially, we note that
{¶5} Brooks also filed on July 11, 2011 a “judicial notice” in which he states that he has a “mental health issue which makes it very hard for me to work on these motion‘s [sic], I‘m asking for help from other inmate‘s [sic] so that I can prove my innocence, while being timely in filing.” Judicial Notice, at 1. He also states that he has had a “problem with this institution telling me that I don‘t have enough monies to send these motion‘s [sic] until I receive state pay * * * .” Id. Additionally, he has attached “Mental Health assessment‘s [sic] from the Department of Corrections and Affidavit of Indigence from Marion Correctional Facility.” Id. He requests that this court “not hold it against me for being late.” Id.
{¶7} We also note that on June 7, 2011, Brooks filed pro se both a notice of appeal and motion for delayed appeal in the Supreme Court of Ohio, Case No. 2001-0955. See 129 Ohio St.3d 1447, supra.
{¶8} The parties have not provided nor has this court has been able to identify any controlling authority which articulates a standard for reviewing Brooks‘s claim that his mental illness establishes good cause. Brooks‘s claim of good cause requires us to consider whether unauthenticated records merely demonstrating the presence of a mental illness are a sufficient basis to establish good cause for the untimely filing of an application for reopening.
{¶9} In State v. Morris, 10th Dist. No. 05AP-1032, 2007-Ohio-2382, reopening disallowed, 2010-Ohio-786, the applicant asserted that he could
establish good cause for his untimely filing, due to his alleged diagnosis and classification by the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections as “seriously mentally ill” under a “C1” standard. However, the documents submitted by defendant fail to explain whether he is classified as a “C1 categorical” or a “C1 functional.”
Defendant unsuccessfully advanced this same argument in his petition for habeas relief in federal district court, whereby he claimed he had established cause for failing to exhaust state court remedies. See Morris v. Kerns (Sept. 2, 2009), S.D.Ohio No. 2:08--1176. We too reject the argument that his alleged classification as “seriously mentally ill” under a “C1” standard establishes good cause for his untimely filing. There is nothing in the record to support his claim that his mental health issues prevented him from filing a timely application to reopen. See also State v. Haliym (Aug. 27, 2001), 8th Dist. No. 54771 (court rejected the defendant‘s claim of mental impairment arising from a gunshot wound to the head as sufficient to establish good cause for waiting more than ten years to file his application). Id. at ¶ 9-10.
{¶10} Likewise, in this case, Brooks has not demonstrated that his mental illness prevented him from timely filing the application. Indeed, in Morris, the applicant was categorized as “C1,” serious mental illness. Brooks is categorized as “C2,” non-serious mental illness, a lesser mental impairment We hold, therefore, that Brooks‘s claim of mental illness does not establish good cause for the untimely filing of his application.
{¶11} Additionally, his lack of funds to mail his application does not establish good cause for the untimely filing of an application for reopening. See, e.g., State v. Graves, 8th Dist. No. 88845, 2007-Ohio-5430, reopening disallowed, 2010-Ohio-4881 (indigence does not establish good cause for the untimely filing of an application for reopening); see also State v. Braddy, 8th Dist. No. 83462, 2004-Ohio-3128, reopening disallowed, 2005-Ohio-282 (lack of adequate funds to mail an application for reopening does not establish good cause for untimely filing).
{¶13} As a consequence, Brooks has not met the standard for reopening. Accordingly, the application for reopening is denied.
KENNETH A. ROCCO, JUDGE
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., P.J., and JAMES J. SWEENEY, J., CONCUR
Notes
| Days | Month |
| 23 | April |
| 31 | May |
| 30 | June |
| 11 | July |
| 95 | TOTAL |
Wednesday, July 6, 2011, was the ninetieth day.