State v. DingessState v. Dingess
Rendered on March 7, 2013
Ron O‘Brien, Prosecuting Attorney, and Seth L. Gilbert, for appellee.
George Dingess, pro se.
ON APPLICATION FOR REOPENING
CONNOR, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, George Dingess (“appellant“), filed an application, pursuant to
{¶ 2} On August 27, 2007, appellant was indicted for three drug offenses: possession of crack cocaine as a felony of the first degree, possеssion of powder cocaine as
{¶ 3} Appellant, through counsel, filed a timely direct appeal in which he asserted five assignments of error, claiming: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the supporting affidavit attached to the search warrant was insufficient to establish probable cause; (2) he was denied а fair trial because the government stacked evidence on a table for the jury to see prior to opening statements; (3) his conviction was against the manifest weight of thе evidence; (4) he was denied a fair trial because a forensic expert analyzed the evidence in a manner focused exclusively upon him as the accused; and (5) the trial court erred in denying his motion for acquittal. We rejected appellant‘s claims on direct appeal and affirmed his convictions. See Dingess. An entry journalizing the aрpellate judgment was filed on November 3, 2011.
{¶ 4}
{¶ 5} Appellant‘s application to reopen was filed on November 14, 2012. However, the 90-day deadline, established under
{¶ 6} In an effort to demonstrate good cause, appellant claims to assert good cause by arguing that his appellate counsel failed to comply with his request to keep him abreast of the status of his case and of any new developments and failed to provide information whiсh would allow him to pursue proper avenues of appeal. Appellant submits that he diligently searched to learn the status of his case pending before the Supremе Court of Ohio and discovered that his appeal had been denied, and that he was limited to pursuing this matter under the 90-day timeframe set forth in
{¶ 7} Notably, however, the 90-day timeframe for filing an application for reopening begins to run from the date our appellate judgment is filed. In this case, that date was November 3, 2011. And, as noted above, this deadline expired on February 1, 2012. In other words, whether or not the Supreme Court declined to accept his appeal for review did not affect the calculation of the 90-day deadline for filing an application for reopening. Additionally, the fact that appellant was aware аn appeal had been filed in the Supreme Court is evidence that he knew he had lost his appeal in this case, and therefore he cannot demonstrate good cause for failing to comply with the 90-day deadline.
{¶ 8} Furthermore, even if appellant were to claim purported ignorance of the 90-day deadline, such a claim does not prove good cause. “Lack of effort or imagination, and ignorance of the law * * * do not automatically establish good cause for failure to seek timely relief.” State v. Reddick, 72 Ohio St.3d 88, 91 (1995) (affirming denial of application to reopen appeal). Appellant cannot rely upon his alleged lack of legal training to excuse his failure to comply with the 90-day deadline. State v. Farrow, 115 Ohio St.3d 205, 206, 2007-Ohio-4792, ¶ 6. The 90-day requirement is “applicable to all appellants.” Id. at 6, quoting State v. Winstead, 74 Ohio St.3d 277, 277, 278 (1996). “Consistent enforcement of the rule‘s deadline by the appellate courts in Ohio protects on the one hand the state‘s legitimate interest in thе finality of its judgments and ensures on
{¶ 9} Appellant has failed to offer a sound reason as to why he (unlike other criminal defendants) could not comply with this fundamental element of the rule. Thus, denial of appellant‘s аpplication to reopen is proper.
{¶ 10} In addition, an application for reopening must set forth “[o]ne or more assignments of error or arguments in support of assignments of error that previously were not considered on the merits in the case by any appellate court or that were considered on an incomplete record because of appellate counsel‘s deficient representation[.]”
{¶ 11} Here, appellant‘s application fails to comply with
{¶ 12} In this case, appellant‘s application does not contain a sworn statement. Such a statement is mandatory, and the failure to comply with this requirement warrants denial of an application to reopen. State v. Lechner, 72 Ohio St.3d 374 (1995). See also State v. Franklin, 72 Ohio St.3d 372 (1995) (an affidavit swearing to the truth of the allegations in the application falls short of the requirements set fоrth in
{¶ 13} In conclusion, because appellant‘s application was filed untimely without good cause, and because he failed to comply with the mandatory requiremеnt set forth in
Application for reopening denied.
TYACK and BROWN, JJ., concur.
__________________