STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. CLYDE SCOTT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
No. 98809
Court of Appeals of Ohio, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
February 4, 2014
[Cite as State v. Scott, 2014-Ohio-379.]
MARY J. BOYLE, A.J.
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. CR-557947, Application for Reopening, Motion No. 470757
JUDGMENT: APPLICATION DENIED
Clyde Scott, pro se
No. 630-904
Lake Erie Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 8000
Conneaut, Ohio 44030
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. McGinty
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
BY: Denise J. Salerno
Amy Venesile
Assistant County Prosecutors
Justice Center
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
{¶1} Clyde Scott has filed an application for reopening pursuant to
{¶2}
We now reject [the applicant‘s] claims that those excuses gave good cause to miss the 90-day deadline in
App.R. 26(B) . * * * 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.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
appellants, 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 criminal 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, at ¶ 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, 1995-Ohio-328, 653 N.E.2d 252; State v. Reddick, 72 Ohio St.3d 88, 1995-Ohio-248, 647 N.E.2d 784.
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.
{¶3} Herein, Scott is attempting to reopen the appellate judgment that was journalized on April 18, 2013. The application for reopening was not filed until December 17, 2013, more than 90 days after journalization of the appellate judgment in Scott, supra. In an attempt to establish good cause, for the untimely filing of his application for reopening, Scott argues that:
* * * may this court find logical reasoning in the material facts; a: hostile environment. I am currently incarcerated in Lake Erie Correctional Institution. I am sure this court is well aware of the conditions that exist in this environment as Lake Erie Correctional has had national attention and several local segments, as well. In my attempts to avoid confrontation, I elected segregation. I have legal mail to verify my time in segregation. While in segregation an inmate will not receive state allowance until a complete month of assignment. Before an assignment can be completed an inmate must be re-classed once returning into general population.
{¶5} Accordingly, the application for reopening is denied.
MARY J. BOYLE, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, J., and EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR