[Cite as State v. Conlon, 2014-Ohio-107.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 80411
STATE OF OHIO
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
vs.
PETER CONLON
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
JUDGMENT:
APPLICATION DENIED
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CR-409242
Application for Reopening
Motion No. 469042
RELEASE DATE: January 15, 2014
-i-
FOR APPELLANT
Peter Conlon, pro se
Inmate No. 409-830
Grafton Correctional Institution
2500 South Avon Belden Road
Grafton, Ohio 44044
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. McGinty
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
By: David Zimmerman
James M. Price
Assistant County Prosecutors
Justice Center - 8th Floor
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
KENNETH A. ROCCO, J.:
{¶1} Peter Conlon has filed an application for reopening pursuant to App.R. 26(B).
Conlon is attempting to reopen the appellate judgment, rendered in State v. Conlon, 8th
Dist. Cuyahoga No. 80411, 2002-Ohio-3435, which affirmed his plea of guilty and
sentence with regard to the offenses of murder and aggravated arson. We decline to
reopen Conlon’s appeal.
{¶2} App.R. 26(B)(2)(b) requires that Conlon establish “a showing of good cause
for untimely filing if the application is filed more than 90 days after journalization of the
appellate judgment,” which is subject to reopening. The Supreme Court of Ohio, with
regard to the 90-day deadline as provided by App.R. 26(B)(2)(b), has recently established
that:
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, ¶ 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-249, 647 N.E.2d 784.
{¶3} Herein, Conlon is attempting to reopen the appellate judgment
that was journalized on July 3, 2002. The application for reopening was
not filed until October 15, 2013, more than 90 days after journalization of
the appellate judgment in State v. Conlon, supra. In an attempt to
establish good cause, for the untimely filing of his application for
reopening, Conlon argues that:
At the criminal trial and on appeal, Conlon’s counsel was the
same law firm and attorney. Because appellate counsel was
the same on appeal as at trial, appellate counsel was not
required to argue trial counsel’s lack of effectiveness * * *
Conlon has no knowledge or understanding of the American
Judicial system.
{¶4} Conlon has failed to establish a showing of good cause for the untimely filing
of his application for reopening. Counsel cannot be expected to argue their own
ineffectiveness on appeal. State v. Lamar, supra; State v. Davis, 86 Ohio St.3d 212,
1999-Ohio-160, 714 N.E.2d 384. In addition, lack of legal training and ignorance of the
law do not establish good cause for failure to seek timely relief pursuant to App.R. 26(B).
State v. Reddick, supra. See also State v. Klein, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 58389, Ohio
App. LEXIS 1346 (Apr. 8, 1991), reopening disallowed (Mar. 15, 1994), Motion No.
49260, aff’d, 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 24, 1995), reopening
disallowed (Apr. 22, 1996), Motion No. 70493; State v. Travis, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.
56825, 1990 Ohio App. LEXIS 1356 (Apr. 5, 1990), reopening disallowed (Nov. 2,
1994), Motion No. 51073, aff’d, 72 Ohio St.3d 317, 1995-Ohio-152, 649 N.E.2d 1226;
State v. Gaston, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 79626, 2007-Ohio-155; State v. Torres, 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 86530, 2007-Ohio-9.
{¶5} Accordingly, the application for reopening is denied.
_____________________________
KENNETH A. ROCCO, JUDGE
MARY J. BOYLE, A.J., and
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR