[Cite as State v. Onunwor, 2013-Ohio-4184.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
___________________________________
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 93937
___________________________________
STATE OF OHIO
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
vs.
CLIFTON ONUNWOR
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
JUDGMENT:
APPLICATION DENIED
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CR-517054
Application for Reopening
Motion No. 467933
RELEASE DATE: September 24, 2013
APPELLANT
Clifton Onunwor, pro se
Inmate No. 572-374
Lebanon Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 56
Lebanon, Ohio 45036
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. McGinty
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
By: Lisa M. Stickan
Assistant County Prosecutor
8th Floor Justice Center
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J.:
{¶1} Cliffton Onunwor has filed an application for reopening pursuant to App.R.
26(B). Onunwor is attempting to reopen the appellate judgment rendered in State v.
Onunwor, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 93937, 2010-Ohio-5587, which affirmed his
conviction for the offenses of aggravated murder and tampering with evidence. We
decline to reopen Onunwor’s appeal.
{¶2} App.R. 26(B)(2)(b) requires that Onunwor 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 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, 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
{¶3} Herein, Onunwor is attempting to reopen the appellate judgment that was
journalized on November 18, 2010. The application for reopening was not filed until
August 18, 2013, more than 90 days after journalization of the appellate judgment in
Onunwor, supra. Onunwor argues that “good cause” for his untimely filing is
established by his limited access to the prison law library. The courts, however, have
repeatedly rejected the claim that limited access to a law library and legal materials states
good cause for untimely filing. Prison riots, lockdowns, and other library limitations
have also been rejected as constituting good cause. State v. Tucker, 73 Ohio St.3d 152,
1995-Ohio-2, 652 N.E.2d 720; State v. Kaszas, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 72546 and
72547, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 4227 (Sept. 10, 1998), reopening disallowed, 2000 Ohio
App. LEXIS 3755 (Aug. 14, 2000); State v. Hickman, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 72341,
Ohio App. LEXIS 1893 (Apr. 30, 1998), reopening disallowed, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS
6079 (Dec. 13, 2000), and State v. Turner, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 55960 (Nov. 16,
1989), reopening disallowed, 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 3774 (Aug. 20, 2001).
{¶4} Onunwor has failed to establish “a showing of good cause” for the untimely
filing of his application for reopening. 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. See also 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.
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, JUDGE
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, P.J., and
KENNETH A. ROCCO, J., CONCUR