State v. OrrState v. Orr
Maxie Orr, Jr., pro se Inmate #600-040 Grafton Correctional Institution 2500 South Avon Beldon Road Grafton, Ohio 44044
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. McGinty Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
By: John Patrick Colan Mary H. McGrath Assistant County Prosecutors 8th Floor Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113
{¶1} Maxie Orr (“Orr“) has filed an application for reopening pursuant to
{¶2} Orr‘s application is untimely because it was not filed within 90 days from journalization of the appellate judgment as required by
{¶3} The Ohio Supreme Court has upheld judgments denying applications for reopening solely on the basis that the application was not timely filed, and the applicant had failed to show “good cause for filing at a later time.” State v. Gumm, 103 Ohio St.3d 162, 2004-Ohio-4755, 814 N.E.2d 861, ¶ 7; State v. Lamar, 102 Ohio St.3d 467, 2004-Ohio-3976, 812 N.E.2d 970. This court has found that we need not reach the merits of an
{¶4} The appellate judgment that Orr seeks to reopen was journalized on December 8, 2011. The application for reopening was not filed until April 16, 2014, well beyond the 90-day deadline for reopening.
{¶5} Orr argues that good cause exists for his delayed filing because he is unversed in the law, he has limited law resources in prison and because he initially pursued other remedies in the trial court. Courts have consistently ruled that lack of knowledge or ignorance of the law does not provide sufficient cause for untimely filing. State v. Klein, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 58389, 1991 Ohio App. LEXIS 1346 (Mar. 28, 1991), reopening disallowed, Motion No. 249260 (Mar. 15, 1994), aff‘d; State ex rel. Dines v. Eighth Dist. Ct. of Appeals, 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 13, 1995), reopening disallowed, Motion No. 270493 (Apr. 22, 1996); State v. Cummings, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 69966, 1996 Ohio App. LEXIS 4565 (Oct. 17, 1996), reopening disallowed, Motion No. 292134 (Mar. 26, 1998); and State v. Young, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 66768 and 66769, 1994 Ohio App. LEXIS 4634 (Oct. 13, 1994), reopening disallowed, Motion No. 266164 (Dec. 5, 1995). Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
{¶6} Courts have also repeatedly rejected the claim that limited access to legal materials states good cause for untimely filing. Being “unlearned in law” and having limited access to the prison library do not satisfy the good cause requirement of
{¶7} Finally, the excuse that applicant was occupied with other appeals is not “good cause” for missing the filing deadline. Gumm, 103 Ohio St.3d 162, 2004-Ohio-4755, 814 N.E.2d 861, ¶ 3.
{¶8} Orr has not established good cause for his delayed filing.
{¶9} Additionally, the trial court denied Orr‘s motion to merge illegal firearm specifications, and that order was affirmed on appeal in State v. Orr, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100166, 2014-Ohio-501. In resolving that appeal, this court explicitly found that the issue of merger of the firearm specifications was raised and addressed in his direct appeal. Id. at ¶ 7. Therefore, this court has already resolved the issue that applicant cites as his sole basis for reopening.
{¶10} The application for reopening is untimely, without good cause for the delay, and it fails on the merits.
Accordingly, the application for reopening is denied.
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, JUDGE
MARY J. BOYLE, A.J., and MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J., CONCUR