[Cite as State v. Dudas, 2022-Ohio-2494.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
STATE OF OHIO, :
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
No. 110573
v. :
MICHAEL DUDAS, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: APPLICATION DENIED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: July 19, 2022
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CR-20-650250-A
Application for Reopening
Motion No. 556031
Appearances:
Michael Dudas, pro se.
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J.:
Michael Dudas has filed an application for reopening pursuant to
App.R. 26(B). Dudas is attempting to reopen the appellate judgment rendered in
State v. Dudas, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 110573, 2022-Ohio-931, that affirmed his
plea of guilty and sentence for the offenses of aggravated murder, aggravated
robbery, and misuse of a credit card imposed in State v. Dudas, Cuyahoga C.P. No.
CR-20-650250-A. We decline to reopen Dudas’ appeal because it is untimely filed
as required by App.R. 26(B)(1).
App.R. 26(B)(2)(b) requires that Dudas establish “a showing of good
cause for untimely filing if the application is filed more than 90 days after
journalization of the appellate judgment” that 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 established that
[w]e 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, 74 Ohio St.3d
277, 278, 658 N.E.2d 722 (1996), 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.
(Emphasis added.) 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, 653 N.E.2d 252 (1995); State v.
Reddick, 72 Ohio St.3d 88, 647 N.E.2d 784 (1995).
Herein, Dudas is attempting to reopen the appellate judgment that
was journalized on March 24, 2022. The application for reopening was not filed
until June 28, 2022, more than 90 days after journalization of the appellate
judgment in Dudas, supra. Dudas has not argued any reasons to establish good
cause for the untimely filing of his application for reopening. It must also be noted
that any delay associated or caused by a prison mail delivery system does not
establish good cause for the untimely filing of an application for reopening. State v.
Black, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 108001, 2020-Ohio-3278; State v. Campbell, 8th
Dist. Cuyahoga No. 105488, 2018-Ohio-3494; State v. Harris, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga
No. 104329, 2018-Ohio-839.
Accordingly, the application for reopening is denied.
________________________
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, JUDGE
FRANK DANIEL CELEBREZZE, III, P.J., and
LISA B. FORBES, J., CONCUR