[Cite as State v. Jackson, 2016-Ohio-7474.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 100877
STATE OF OHIO
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
vs.
HARRISON JACKSON
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
JUDGMENT:
APPLICATION DENIED
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CR-13-574810-A
Application for Reopening
Motion No. 498297
RELEASE DATE: October 21, 2016
FOR APPELLANT
Harrison Jackson, pro se
Inmate No. A650980
Lake Erie Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 8000
Conneaut, Ohio 44030
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. McGinty
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
By: Denise J. Salerno
Assistant County Prosecutor
9th Floor Justice Center
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J.:
{¶1} Harrison Jackson has filed an application for reopening pursuant to App.R.
26(B). Jackson is attempting to reopen the appellate judgment rendered in State v.
Jackson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100877, 2014-Ohio-5137, that affirmed his conviction
for the offenses of rape (R.C. 2907.02(A)(2)) and kidnapping (R.C. 2905.01(A)(4)), but
vacated the order of classification as a sexual predator and the imposition of an indefinite
sentence of incarceration, and remanded to the trial court to conduct a sexual offender
classification hearing and resentencing. We decline to reopen Jackson’s appeal.
{¶2} Jackson has failed to comply with App.R. 26(B)(2)(d), which mandates that
the applicant must attach to the application for reopening “a sworn statement of the basis
for the claim that appellate counsel’s representation was deficient.” State v. Doles, 75
Ohio St.3d 604, 665 N.E.2d 197 (1996); State v. Lechner, 72 Ohio St.3d 374, 650 N.E.2d
449 (1995); State v. Bates, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 97631, 97632, 97633, and 97634,
2015-Ohio-4176.
{¶3} In addition, App.R. 26(B)(2)(c) mandates that the application for reopening
must contain “[o]ne or more assignments of error or arguments in support of assignments
of error that were not considered on the merits * * * by any appellate court.” Herein,
Jackson has not presented this court with any proposed assignments of error or arguments
that demonstrate a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Jackson’s failure
to clearly state any assignments of error that should have been argued on appeal and the
failure to demonstrate a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel
renders his application for reopening fatally defective. State v. Spivey, 84 Ohio St.3d 24,
1998-Ohio-704, 701 N.E.2d 696; State v. Reed, 74 Ohio St.3d 534, 1996-Ohio-21, 660
N.E.2d 45.
{¶4} Accordingly, the application for reopening is denied.
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, JUDGE
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, P.J., and
MELODY J. STEWART, J., CONCUR