Barnes v. Hanna
This text of 2021 Ohio 1588 (Barnes v. Hanna) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
[Cite as Barnes v. Hanna, 2021-Ohio-1588.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
DEMETRIUS A. BARNES, :
Plaintiff-Appellant, : No. 109859 v. :
HOWARD HANNA, ET AL., :
Defendants-Appellees. :
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: APPLICATION DENIED RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: May 3, 2021
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-15-600442-A Cleveland Heights Municipal Court Case No. B8-2425-J Application for Reopening Motion No. 546019
Appearances:
Demetrius A. Barnes, pro se.
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, J.:
On April 22, 2021, the applicant, Demetrius A. Barnes, pursuant to
App.R. 26(B) and State v. Murnahan, 63 Ohio St.3d 60, 584 N.E.2d 1204 (1992)
filed an application to reopen. In the caption, Barnes refers to two different cases,
State v. Barnes, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-15-600442-A, and Barnes v. Howard Hanna, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109859. Thus, it is difficult to discern which case
he seeks to reopen. For the following reasons, this court denies the application.
In State v. Barnes, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-15-600442-A, (hereinafter
the “Criminal Case”), on April 5, 2017, Barnes pled guilty to burglary and theft. The
trial court imposed two years of community control on each count. The docket of
this case shows that on March 13, 2019, the trial court terminated Barnes’s
community control sanction. Barnes never appealed this case.
In Barnes v. Howard Hanna, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109859
(hereinafter the “Civil Case”), Barnes, pro se, tried to appeal from Cleveland Heights
M.C. No. B8-2425-J, on July 31, 2020. However, on August 5, 2020, this court
dismissed the appeal, because Barnes did not file the notice of appeal in the trial
court as required by App.R. 3(A). He now files this application to reopen in which
he refers to Howard Hanna, the sale of property, lack of notice of the sale, and lack
of a contract.
To the extent that Barnes is trying to reopen his appeal in the Civil
Case, App.R. 26(B) is the wrong remedy. This rule applies only to appeals from
judgments of convictions and sentences, in other words, only to criminal cases. To
the extent that Barnes is trying to file a motion for reconsideration under
App.R. 26(A), this court denies the motion, because such motions for
reconsideration are to be filed within ten days of this court’s judgment.
To the extent that Barnes is seeking to reopen the Criminal Case,
App.R. 26(B) is inapplicable because there was never an appeal. To the extent that he is seeking to file a motion for delayed appeal under App.R. 5, this court declines
to grant such a motion, because the criminal case does not appear to be the focus of
the application and because Barnes has been released from his community control
sanction after pleading guilty.
Accordingly, this court denies the application to reopen.
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, JUDGE
MARY J. BOYLE, A.J., and SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2021 Ohio 1588, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barnes-v-hanna-ohioctapp-2021.