[Cite as State v. Cowan, 2015-Ohio-4271.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 100741
STATE OF OHIO
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
vs.
CRAIG A. COWAN
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
JUDGMENT:
APPLICATION DENIED
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CR-11-550536-A
Application for Reopening
Motion No. 487463
RELEASE DATE: October 9, 2015
FOR APPELLANT
Craig A. Cowan, pro se
Inmate No. 622-034
Grafton Correctional Institution
2500 South Avon-Belden Road
Grafton, Ohio 44044
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. McGinty
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
By: Joseph J. Ricotta
Brett Hammond
Assistant County Prosecutors
8th Floor Justice Center
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
LARRY A. JONES, SR., P.J.:
{¶1} Craig A. Cowan has filed a second App.R. 26(B) application for reopening of
the appellate judgment that was rendered by this court in State v. Cowan, 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 100741, 2014-Ohio-3593.
{¶2} On February 25, 2015, this court denied Cowan’s initial application for
reopening on the basis of untimely filing and the fact that the issue of merger of the
offenses of having weapons while under disability, improperly handling firearms in a
motor vehicle, and discharge of a firearm on or near a prohibited premises was addressed
upon appeal. On July 20, 2015, Cowan filed a second App.R. 26(B) application for
reopening.
{¶3} Once again, Cowan has failed to establish good cause for the untimely filing
of his application for reopening, which was filed more than 90 days after journalization of
the appellate judgment on August 21, 2014. Thus, we are required to deny the untimely
filed application for reopening. State v. Gumm, 103 Ohio St.3d 162, 2004-Ohio-4755,
814 N.E.2d 861; 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.
{¶4} Of greater significance is the fact that Cowan is not permitted to file a second
application for reopening. State v. Twyford, 106 Ohio St.3d 176, 2005-Ohio-4380, 833
N.E.2d 289. “[T]here is no right to file successive applications for reopening” under
App.R. 26(B). State v. Williams, 99 Ohio St.3d 179, 2003- Ohio-3079, 790 N.E.2d 299,
¶ 12. See also State v. Cooey, 99 Ohio St.3d 345, 2003-Ohio-3914, 792 N.E.2d 720;
State v. Richardson, 74 Ohio St.3d 235, 1996-Ohio-258, 658 N.E.2d 273. “[A] prisoner
has no right to file successive applications for reopening. Once ineffective assistance of
counsel has been raised and adjudicated, res judicata bars its relitigation.” State v.
Cheren, 73 Ohio St.3d 137, 138, 1995-Ohio-28, 652 N.E.2d 707. See also State v.
Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 226 N.E.2d 104 (1967).
{¶5} Accordingly, the application for reopening is denied.
LARRY A. JONES, SR., PRESIDING JUDGE
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., and
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR