Opinion
No. 99822
03-14-2018
STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE v. ERIC JOHNSON DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
FOR APPELLANT Eric Johnson, pro se Inmate No. 640882 P.O. Box 788 Mansfield, Ohio 44901 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Michael C. O'Malley Cuyahoga County Prosecutor By: Nicole Ellis Assistant County Prosecutor Justice Center, 8th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION JUDGMENT: APPLICATION DENIED Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CR-12-567736-A
Application for Reopening
Motion No. 514177
FOR APPELLANT
Eric Johnson, pro se
Inmate No. 640882
P.O. Box 788
Mansfield, Ohio 44901
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Michael C. O'Malley
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
By: Nicole Ellis
Assistant County Prosecutor
Justice Center, 8th Floor
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113 PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, J.:
{¶1} Applicant, Eric Johnson, seeks to reopen his appeal claiming that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to argue that attempted murder was not a crime in Ohio during the relevant period. Having reviewed the record and relevant law, this court declines to reopen his appeal. The apposite facts follow.
{¶2} On January 23, 2018, Johnson, pursuant to App.R. 26(B) and State v. Murnahan, 63 Ohio St.3d 60, 584 N.E.2d 1204 (1992), applied to reopen this court's February 13, 2014 judgment in State v. Johnson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99822, 2014-Ohio-494. There, Johnson's convictions and sentences for aggravated robbery, kidnapping, and attempted murder were affirmed. The state of Ohio did not file a brief in opposition to Johnson's application.
Timeliness of the Application
{¶3} App.R. 26(B)(1) and (B)(2)(b) require applications claiming ineffective assistance of appellate counsel to be filed within 90 days from the date the appellate decision was journalized, unless the applicant shows good cause for filing at a later time. The 90-day deadline for filing an application for reopening must be strictly enforced. State v. Lamar, 102 Ohio St.3d 467, 2004-Ohio-3976, 812 N.E.2d 970; State v. Gumm, 103 Ohio St.3d 162, 2004-Ohio-4755, 814 N.E.2d 861.
{¶4} Johnson filed his application on January 23, 2018 — almost four years after this court issued its decision in the underlying case. Thus, it is untimely on its face.
{¶5} Johnson fails to allege any reason for his delay. An untimely application must set forth good cause for tardiness. Johnson has failed to show good cause. Because the lack of good cause precludes our consideration of the untimely application, the substantive merits of the application cannot be addressed. State ex rel. Wood v. McClelland, 140 Ohio St.3d 331, 2014-Ohio-3969, 18 N.E.3d 423, ¶ 13.
{¶6} Application denied. /s/_________
PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, JUDGE EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, A.J., and
MARY J. BOYLE, J., CONCUR