State v. Bartoe

2012 Ohio 154

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: January 17, 2012
• Docket: 95286
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Bartoe, 2012-Ohio-154.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 95286

STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

vs.

JACOB BARTOE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

JUDGMENT: APPLICATION DENIED

Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Case No.CR-529964 Application for Reopening Motion No. 446562

RELEASE DATE: January 17, 2012 FOR APPELLANT

Jacob Bartoe Inmate No. 584382 North Central Correctional Inst. P. O. Box 1812 Marion, Ohio 43302

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

William D. Mason Cuyahoga County Prosecutor

By: Daniel T. Van Justice Center, 8th Fl. 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, OH 44113

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, P.J.:

{¶ 1} In State v. Bartoe, Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas

Case No. CR-529964, applicant, Jacob Bartoe, was convicted of two counts of

aggravated robbery and two counts of kidnapping, each with firearm and

forfeiture specifications. For the purpose of sentencing, the state elected to

go forward on one count of aggravated robbery. This court affirmed that

judgment in State v. Bartoe, 8th Dist. No. 95286, 2011-Ohio-2521.

{¶ 2} Although Bartoe argues that there is good cause for the untimely

filing of his application, he has filed with the clerk of this court a timely

application for reopening. We deny the application for reopening. As

required by App.R. 26(B)(6), the reasons for our denial follow.

{¶ 3} Bartoe’s application does not contain “[o]ne or more assignments of error or arguments in support of assignments of error that previously were

not considered on the merits in the case by any appellate court or that were

considered on an incomplete record because of appellate counsel’s deficient

representation” as required by App.R. 26(B)(2)(c). It is well established that

the failure to state assignments of error is a sufficient ground for denying an

application for reopening. See, e.g., State v. Fryerson, 8th Dist. No. 91960,

2009-Ohio-4227, reopening disallowed, 2010-Ohio-1852, ¶ 8.

{¶ 4} Additionally, Bartoe did not support his application with a sworn

statement as required by App.R. 26(B)(2)(d). The failure to support an

application for reopening with a sworn statement is a ground for denying the

application. See, e.g., State v. Thomas, 8th Dist. No. 94042, 2010-Ohio-5237,

reopening disallowed, 2011-Ohio-6070.

{¶ 5} As a consequence, Bartoe has not met the standard for reopening.

Accordingly, the application for reopening is denied.

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, PRESIDING JUDGE

PATRICIA A. BLACKMON, A.J., AND EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR