STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. DRAYSHON CONGRESS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
No. 102867
Court of Appeals of Ohio, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
RELEASE DATE: November 5, 2018
2018-Ohio-4521
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION; Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. CR-13-579147-A; Application for Reopening, Motion No. 519888
Drayshon Congress Inmate No. 652486 Richland Correctional Institution P.O. Box 8107 Mаnsfield, Ohio 44905
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Michael C. O’Malley Cuyahoga County Prosecutor By: Anthony T. Miranda Assistant County Prosecutor Justice Center, 8th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113
TIM McCORMACK, J.:
{¶1} Drayshon Congress has filed an applicаtion for reopening pursuant to
{¶2}
[w]e now reject [the applicant’s] claims that those excuses gave him good cause to miss the 90-day deadline in App.R. 26(B) . * * * Consistent enforcement of the rule’s deadline by the aрpellate courts in Ohio protects on the one hand the state’s legitimate interest in the finality of its judgments and ensures on the other hand that any claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel are promptly examined and resolved.Ohio and other states “may erect reasonable procedural requirements for triggering the right to an adjudication,” Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co. (1982), 455 U.S. 422, 437, 102 S.Ct. 1148, 71 L.Ed.2d 265, and that is what Ohio has done by creating a 90-day deadline for the filing of applications to reopen. * * * The 90-day requirement in the rule is “applicable to all apрellants,” State v. Winstead (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 277, 278, 658 N.E.2d 722, and [the applicant] offers no sound reason why he — unlike so many other Ohio criminаl defendants — could not comply with that fundamental aspect of the rule.
(Emphasis added.) State v. Gumm, 103 Ohio St.3d 162, 2004-Ohio-4755, 814 N.E.2d 861, ¶ 7. See also State v. Lamar, 102 Ohio St.3d 467, 2004-Ohio-3976, 812 N.E.2d 970; State v. Cooey, 73 Ohio St.3d 411, 653 N.E.2d 252 (1995); State v. Reddick, 72 Ohio St.3d 88, 647 N.E.2d 784 (1995).
{¶3} Herein, Congress is аttempting to reopen the appellate judgment that was journalized on Decembеr 17, 2015. The application for reopening was not filed until August 2, 2018, more than 90 days after journalization of the appellate judgment in Congress, supra. Congress claims that: 1) he did not timely receive notice from appellate counsel with regard to the ability to file an
{¶4} The аrguments raised by Congress in support of his good cause argument do not establish a valid basis for thе untimely filing of his
{¶5} In addition, this court has consistently ruled that lack of knowledge or ignorance of the law does not provide sufficient cause for untimеly filing. State v. Klein, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga App. No. 58389, 1991 Ohio App. LEXIS 1346 (Apr. 8, 1991), reopening disallowed (Mar. 15, 1994), Motion No. 49260, affirmed, 69 Ohio St.3d 1481, 634 N.E.2d 1027 (1994); State v. Trammell, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 67834, 1995 Ohio App. LEXIS 2962 (July 24, 1995), reopening disallowed (Apr. 22, 1996), Motion No. 70493; State v. Cummings, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga App. No. 69966, 1996 Ohio Aрp. LEXIS 4565 (Oct. 17, 1996), reopening disallowed (Mar. 26, 1998), Motion No. 92134; and State v. Young, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 66768 and 66769, 1994 Ohio App. LEXIS 4634 (Oct. 13, 1994), reopening disallowed (Dec. 5, 1995), Motion No. 66164.
{¶6} Finally, an application to reopen pursuant to
{¶7} In State v. Halliwell, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 70369, 1996 Ohio App. LEXIS 5750 (Dec. 19, 1996), reopening disallowed (Jan. 28, 1999), Motion No. 70369, this court held that
{¶8} Accordingly, the
TIM McCORMACK, JUDGE
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, P.J., and EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR