[Cite as State v. Freeman, 2014-Ohio-5268.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 92809
STATE OF OHIO
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
vs.
CHARLES FREEMAN
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
JUDGMENT:
APPLICATION DENIED
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case Nos. CR-08-508859 and CR-08-518221
Application for Reopening
Motion No. 477955
RELEASE DATE: November 21, 2014
-i-
FOR APPELLANT
Charles E. Freeman, pro se
#561-884, Lorain Correctional Institution
2075 South Avon-Belden Road
Grafton, Ohio 44044
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. McGinty
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
By: Anna M. Faraglia
Katherine Mullin
Assistant County Prosecutors
8th Floor Justice Center
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, J.:
{¶1} Under App.R. 26(B) applicant Charles Freeman filed an application to reopen the
appellate judgment rendered in State v. Freeman, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 92809,
2010-Ohio-3714. His application is untimely, and in order to overcome an untimely application,
the applicant must show good cause. Applicant has not established good cause; therefore, the
application must be denied.
{¶2} The appellate judgment was journalized on August 12, 2010. The application for
reopening was not filed until August 26, 2014. This falls well outside the time limits of App.R.
26(B)(1), which requires applications to be filed within 90 days after journalization of the
appellate judgment. The only exception that would permit us to review an untimely application is
if applicant establishes good cause for filing at a later time. Id.
{¶3} The Supreme Court of Ohio, with regard to the 90-day deadline provided by
App.R. 26(B)(2)(b), has firmly established that
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 applicant]
could have retained new attorneys after the court of appeals issued its decision in
1994, or he could have filed the application on his own. What he could not do was
ignore the rule’s filing deadline. * * * The 90-day requirement in the rule is
“applicable to all appellants,” State v. Winstead (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 277, 278,
1996-Ohio-52, 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. LaMar, 102 Ohio St.3d 467, 2004-Ohio-3976, 812 N.E.2d 970, ¶ 7-9. “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.” State v.
Gumm, 103 Ohio St.3d 162, 2004-Ohio-4755, 814 N.E.2d 861, ¶ 7. Applicant does not address
the issue of his untimely application and he does not argue that any good cause exists for the late
filing. Therefore, the untimely application for reopening must be denied. State v. Garcia, 8th
Dist. Cuyahoa No. 74427, 2005-Ohio-5796, ¶ 3.
{¶4} Accordingly, this court denies the application to reopen.
PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, JUDGE
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, P.J., and
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J., CONCUR