STATE OF OHIO v. ANTOINNE WYNN
No. 103824
Court of Appeals of Ohio, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
December 15, 2017
2017-Ohio-9151
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-15-595910-A. Application for Reopening, Motion No. 510057.
STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. ANTOINNE WYNN DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
JUDGMENT: APPLICATION DENIED
Antoinne Wynn, pro se
Inmate No. A674993
Madison Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 740
London, Ohio 43140
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Michael C. O’Malley
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
By: Gregory Ochocki
Assistant County Prosecutor
8th Floor Justice Center
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
{¶1} Antoinne Wynn has filed an application for reopening pursuant to
A. Untimely
{¶2}
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., 455 U.S. 422, 437, 102 S.Ct. 1148, 71 L.Ed.2d 265 (1982), 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, 74 Ohio St.3d 277, 278, 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 - 8, ¶ 10. 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); and State v. Reddick, 72 Ohio St.3d 88, 647 N.E.2d 784 (1995).
{¶3} On September 5, 2017, Wynn filed two separate documents: (1) an application to reopen that failed to contain a sworn affidavit required under
{¶4} In an effort to establish good cause, Wynn argues “significant hardships,” such as being held in protective control and “extreme poverty,” which have effectively deprived him of ready access to a law library or other legal materials and services. The courts, however, have repeatedly rejected the claim that limited access to legal materials states good cause for untimely filing. Prison riots, lockdowns and other library limitations have been rejected as constituting good cause. State v. Young, 8th Dist.
{¶5} Wynn has failed to demonstrate good cause for his untimely application and, therefore, we are constrained to deny it.
B. Res Judicata
{¶6} Aside from being untimely, Wynn‘s request for reopening is also barred by res judicata. “Res judicata may be applied to bar further litigation of issues that were raised previously or could have been raised previously in an appeal.” State v. Houston, 73 Ohio St.3d 346, 347, 652 N.E.2d 1018 (1995). The Supreme Court of Ohio has further established that a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel may be barred by the doctrine of res judicata unless circumstances render the application of the doctrine unjust. State v. Murnahan, 63 Ohio St.3d 60, 584 N.E.2d 1204 (1992).
{¶7} The record on appeal reveals that Wynn was afforded the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. Under such circumstances and when it is not unjust to do so, this court has previously held that res judicata bars an
{¶8} We find that the application of res judicata is not unjust in this case. Wynn was already afforded the opportunity to raise the arguments that he now asserts in his application. Further, his arguments challenging defects in the indictment as well as the trial court‘s failure to grant his motion to dismiss were already raised and expressly rejected by this court. The application of res judicata is warranted in this case.
{¶9} The application for reopening is denied.
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, PRESIDING JUDGE
MELODY J. STEWART, J., and
PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, J., CONCUR