STATE OF OHIO v. ZACHARY JOHNSON
No. 105612
Court of Appeals of Ohio, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
December 19, 2018
2018-Ohio-5151
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. CR-16-608678-A, Application for Reopening, Motion No. 519237
Zachary Johnson, pro se Inmate No. 694028 Mansfield Correctional Institution P.O. Box 788 Mansfield, Ohio 44901
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Michael C. O’Malley Cuyahoga County Prosecutor By: Maxwell Martin Assistant County Prosecutor Justice Center, 9th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, P.J.:
{¶1} On July 12, 2018, the applicant, Zachary Johnson, pursuant to
{¶2}
{¶3} The Supreme Court of Ohio in State v. Lamar, 102 Ohio St.3d 467, 2004-Ohio-3976, 812 N.E.2d 970, and State v. Gumm, 103 Ohio St.3d 162, 2004-Ohio-4755, 814 N.E.2d 861, held that the 90-day deadline for filing must be strictly enforced. In those cases the applicants argued that after the court of appeals decided their cases, their appellate counsel continued to represent them, and their appellate counsel could not be expected to raise their own incompetence. Although the Supreme Court agreed with this latter principle, it rejected the argument that continued representation provided good cause. In both cases, the court ruled that the applicants could not ignore the ninety-day deadline, even if it meant retaining new counsel or filing the applications themselves. The court then reaffirmed the principle that lack of effort, imagination, and ignorance of the law do not establish good cause for complying with this fundamental aspect of the rule. As a corollary, miscalculation of the time needed for mailing would also not state good cause. State v. Winstead, 74 Ohio St.3d 277, 1996-Ohio-52, 658 N.E.2d 722, is particularly instructive. Winstead sought to file his
{¶4} Accordingly, this court denies the application to reopen.
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, PRESIDING JUDGE
TIM McCORMACK, J., and
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR