[Cite as State v. Wilson, 2013-Ohio-1787.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 97940
STATE OF OHIO
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
vs.
DEONTE M. WILSON
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
JUDGMENT:
APPLICATION DENIED
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CR-554666
Application for Reopening
Motion No. 462197
RELEASE DATE: April 26, 2013
FOR APPELLANT
Deonte M. Wilson, pro se
Inmate No. 622-053
Trumbull Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 901
5701 Burnett Road
Leavittsburg, OH 44430
ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT
Timothy J. McGinty
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
By: Denise J. Salerno
Assistant County Prosecutor
Justice Center, 8th Floor
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, OH 44113
TIM McCORMACK, J.:
{¶1} Deonte M. Wilson has filed an application for reopening pursuant to App.R.
26(B). Wilson is attempting to reopen the appellate judgment, rendered in State v.
Wilson, 8th Dist. No. 97940, 2012-Ohio-4819, which affirmed his conviction for the
offenses of aggravated robbery and having weapons while under disability. We decline
to reopen Wilson’s appeal.
{¶2} App.R. 26(B)(2)(b) requires that Wilson 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 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.
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-248, 647 N.E.2d 784.
{¶3} Herein, Wilson is attempting to reopen the appellate judgment that was
journalized on October 18, 2012. The application for reopening was not filed until
February 5, 2013, more than 90 days after journalization of the appellate judgment in
State v. Wilson, supra. Wilson has failed to establish “a showing of good cause” for the
untimely filing of his application for reopening. State v. Klein, 8th Dist. 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. No. 67834, 1995 Ohio App. LEXIS 2962 (July 24, 1995), reopening disallowed
(Apr. 22, 1996), Motion No. 70493; State v. Travis, 8th Dist. 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. No. 79626, 2007-Ohio-155; State v. Torres, 8th Dist. No. 86530, 2007-Ohio-9.
{¶4} Accordingly, the application for reopening is denied.
TIM McCORMACK, JUDGE
PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, P.J., and
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J., CONCUR