[Cite as State v. Dudley, 2012-Ohio-5059.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 94972
STATE OF OHIO
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
vs.
EDDIE DUDLEY
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
JUDGMENT:
APPLICATION DENIED
Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court
Case No. CR-530921
Application for Reopening
Motion No. 457179
RELEASE DATE: October 31, 2012
FOR APPELLANT
Eddie Dudley, pro se
Inmate No. 582-483
Lorain Correctional Institution
2075 South Avon-Belden Road
Grafton, Ohio 44044
ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT
Timothy J. McGinty
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
By: James M. Price
Luke Mahoney
Assistant County Prosecutors
Justice Center, 8th Floor
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, J.:
{¶1} Eddie Dudley has filed an application for reopening pursuant to App.R.
26(B). Dudley is attempting to reopen the appellate judgment rendered in State v.
Dudley, 8th Dist. No. 94972, 2011-Ohio-726, which affirmed his conviction for the
offenses of kidnapping, felonious assault, and domestic violence. We decline to reopen
Dudley’s appeal.
{¶2} App.R. 26(B)(2)(b) mandates that Dudley establish “a showing of good
cause for untimely filing if the application if filed more than 90 days after journalization
of the appellate judgment,” which is subject to reopening. The Ohio Supreme Court,
with regard to the 90-day deadline has firmly established that:
* * * 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 the fundamental aspect of the
rule.
State v. Gumm, 103 Ohio St.3d 162, 2004-Ohio-4755, 814 N.E.2d 861, ¶ 7-8. 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, Dudley is attempting to reopen the appellate judgment that was
journalized on February 17, 2011. The application for reopening was not filed until July
26, 2012, more than 90 days after journalization of the appellate judgment in Dudley.
Dudley, in his application for reopening, fails to argue any basis for the untimely filing of
his application for reopening. Dudley, through a filing captioned “motion in contra to
states memorandum in opposition to appellant’s allocation for reopening” argues that he
possesses “good cause” for the untimely filing of the application for reopening based on
reliance on appellate counsel and difficulty in obtaining legal documents in order to
process and/or support the application for reopening.
{¶4} Reliance on appellate counsel does not establish good cause for the
untimely filing of an application for reopening. State v. White, 8th Dist. No. 57944, 1991
Ohio App. LEXIS 357 (Jan. 31, 1991), reopening disallowed, Motion No. 249174 (Oct.
19, 1994); State v. Allen, 8th Dist. No. 65806, 1994 LEXIS 4956, reopening disallowed,
Motion No. 267054 (July 8, 1996). In addition, difficulty in obtaining legal materials
does not establish good cause for the untimely filing of an application for reopening.
State v. Houston, 73 Ohio St.3d 346, 1995-Ohio-317, 652 N.E.2d 1018; State v. Harrison,
8th Dist. No. 77929, 2012-Ohio-4397. Dudley has failed to establish “a showing of good
cause” for the untimely filing of his application for reopening premised on reliance on his
appellate counsel and difficulty in obtaining legal materials.
{¶5} Accordingly, the application for reopening is denied.
COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, JUDGE
PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, A.J., and
MARY J. BOYLE, J., CONCUR