State v. FreemanState v. Freeman
JUDGMENT: APPLICATION DENIED
APPLICATION FOR REOPENING
RELEASE DATE: June 23, 2009
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
William D. Mason
By: Dominic Delbalso Assistant County Prosecutor 8th Floor Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113
FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
Maurice Freeman, pro se Inmate No. 431-957 Trumbull Correctional Inst. P.O. Box 901 Leavittsburg, Ohio 44430
ANN DYKE, J.:
{¶ 1} Maurice Freeman has filed an application for reopening pursuant to
{¶ 2}
{¶ 3} “We now reject Gumm‘s claim that those excuses gave him good cause to miss the 90-day deadline in
App.R. 26(B) . The rule was amended to include the 90-day deadline more than seven months before Gumm‘s appeal of right was decided by the court of appeals in February 1994, so the rule was firmly established then, just as it is today. Consistent enforcement of the rule‘s deadline by the appellate 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.{¶ 4} “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. Gumm could have retained new attorneys after the court of appeals issued its decision in 1994, or he could have filed the application on his own. What he could not do was ignore the rule‘s filing deadline. * * * The 90-day requirement in the rule is ‘applicable to all appellants,’ State v. Winstead (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 277, 278, 658 N.E.2d 722, and Gumm offers no sound reason why he –
unlike so many other Ohio criminal defendants – could not comply with that fundamental aspect of the rule.” (Emphasis added.)
{¶ 5} State v. Gumm, 103 Ohio St.3d 162, 2004-Ohio-4755, 814 N.E.2d 861, at ¶7.
{¶ 6} 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, 1995-Ohio-328, 653 N.E.2d 252; State v. Reddick, 72 Ohio St.3d 88, 1995-Ohio-249, 647 N.E.2d 784.
{¶ 7} Herein, Freeman is attempting to reopen the appellate judgment that was journalized on September 16, 2002. The application for reopening was not filed until May 4, 2009, more than 90 days after journalization of the appellate judgement in State v. Freeman, supra. Freeman has failed to establish “a showing of good cause” for the untimely filing of his application for reopening, since ignorance of the law and reliance on counsel do not demonstrate good cause. State v. Arcuri (April 29, 2004), Cuyahoga App. No. 84435, reopening disallowed, 2009-Ohio-1083. See, also, State v. Klein (Apr. 8, 1991), Cuyahoga App. No. 58389, reopening disallowed (Mar. 15, 1994), Motion No. 49260, affirmed (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 1481; State v. Trammell (July 24, 1995), Cuyahoga App. No. 67834, reopening disallowed (Apr. 22, 1996), Motion No. 70493; State v. Travis (Apr. 5, 1990), Cuyahoga App. No. 56825, reopening disallowed (Nov. 2, 1994), Motion No. 51073, affirmed (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 317.
{¶ 8} Accordingly, the application for reopening is denied.
ANN DYKE, JUDGE
PATRICIA A. BLACKMON, P.J., and
JAMES J. SWEENEY, J., CONCUR