State v. WoodsState v. Woods
Leland Woods, pro se
Inmate # A443897
Grafton Correctional Institution
2500 South Avon-Belden Road
Grafton, Ohio 44044
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. McGinty
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
By: James M. Price
Assistant County Prosecutor
Justice Center, Courts Tower
9th Floor
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
{¶1} Leland Woods has filed an application for reopening pursuant to
{¶2} Woods has failed to comply with
{¶3} In addition, Woods‘s application is untimely.
Consistent enforcement of the rule‘s deadline by the appellate courts in Ohio protects on the one hand the state‘s lеgitimate 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 reasonablе procedural requirements for triggering the right to an adjudication,” Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 437, 102 S.Ct. 1148, 71 L.Ed.2d 265 (1982) and that is what Ohio hаs 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 appellаnts, State v. Winstead, 74 Ohio St.3d 277, 278, 1996 Ohio 52, 658 N.E.2d 722 (1996) 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.
State v. Gumm, 103 Ohio St.3d 162, 2004-Ohio-4755, 814 N.E.2d 861, ¶ 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, 653 N.E.2d 252 (1995); State v. Reddick, 72 Ohio St.3d 88, 1995-Ohio-249, 647 N.E.2d 784.
{¶4} In Gumm and Lamar, the Ohio Supreme Court upheld judgments denying applications for reopеning solely on the basis that the application was not timely filed and the apрlicant had failed to show “good cause for filing at a later time.” Likewise, this court has found that we need not reach the merits of an
{¶5} The appellate judgment that Woods seeks to reopеn was journalized on June 14, 2004. The application for reopening was not filed until November 21, 2013, and beyond the 90-day deadline for reopening. Woods has not offerеd any good cause to justify his untimely filed application. Furthermore, 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 (Apr. 8, 1991), reopеning 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 Apр. 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 exсuse. 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
{¶6} Accordingly, the application for reopening is denied.
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, JUDGE
LARRY A. JONES, SR., P.J., and
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR