State v. Anderson

2013 Ohio 1335

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Anderson, 2013-Ohio-1335.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 92576

STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

vs.

LATANGIA ANDERSON DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

JUDGMENT: APPLICATION DENIED

Application for Reopening Motion No. 463329 Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-510427

RELEASE DATE: April 2, 2013 FOR APPELLANT

LaTangia Anderson, pro se Inmate No. WO73786 Ohio Reformatory For Women 1479 Collins Avenue Marysville, Ohio 43040

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Timothy J. McGinty Cuyahoga County Prosecutor

By: Katherine Mullin Assistant County Prosecutor 8th Floor Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J.:

{¶1} On March 18, 2013, the applicant, LaTangia Anderson, pursuant to App.R.

26(B) and State v. Murnahan, 63 Ohio St.3d 60, 584 N.E.2d 1204 (1992), applied to

reopen this court’s judgment in State v. Anderson, 8th Dist. No. 92576, 2010-Ohio-2085,

that affirmed Anderson’s conviction for murder, but remanded to the trial court to correct

the sentencing entry by deleting references to postrelease control. 1 Anderson now

argues that her appellate counsel was ineffective for not arguing that the trial court erred

when it entered judgment on a guilty plea without establishing that there was a factual

basis for the plea. For the following reasons, this court denies the application, sua

sponte.

{¶2} App.R. 26(B)(1) and (2)(b) require applications claiming ineffective

assistance of appellate counsel to be filed within 90 days from journalization of the

decision unless the applicant shows good cause for filing at a later time. The March

2013 application was filed approximately three years after this court’s decision. Thus, it

is untimely on its face. Anderson makes no proffer of good cause. The Supreme

Court of Ohio in State v. LaMar, 102 Ohio St.3d 467, 2004-Ohio-3976, 812 N.E.2d 970,

1 Anderson pleaded guilty to murder, and the court sentenced her to 15 years to life and also imposed five years of postrelease control. Appellate counsel argued that the guilty plea was not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily given; that the trial court erred in denying her motion to withdraw the guilty plea; and that the trial court erred in using an electronic signature. and State v. Gumm, 103 Ohio St.3d 162, 2004-Ohio-4755, 814 N.E.2d 861, held that the

90-day deadline for filing must be strictly enforced.

{¶3} Accordingly, with no proffered reason for good cause, this court denies the

application to reopen.

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, JUDGE

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, P.J., and TIM McCORMACK, J., CONCUR