State v. Bronczyk

2013 Ohio 3129

Opinion

Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 98664

STATE OF OHIO

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

vs.

JOSEPH BRONCZYK

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

JUDGMENT:

APPLICATION DENIED

Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Case No. CR-540345 Application for Reopening Motion No. 465969

RELEASE DATE: July 17, 2013

APPELLANT

Joseph Bronczyk, Pro Se No. 594-815 2500 South Avon Belden Road Grafton, Ohio 44044

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Timothy J. McGinty Cuyahoga County Prosecutor By: Holly Welsh Assistant County Prosecutor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J.:

{¶1} On June 20, 2013, Joseph Bronczyk filed an application for reopening

pursuant to App.R. 26(B). Bronczyk is attempting to reopen the appeal that was

dismissed by this court on May 8, 2013.

App.R. 26(B)(1) provides that

a defendant in a criminal case may apply for reopening of the appeal from the judgment of conviction and sentence, based on a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. An application for reopening shall be filed in the court of appeals where the appeal was decided within ninety days from journalization of the appellate judgment unless the applicant shows good cause for filing at a later time.

(Emphasis added.)

{¶2} In the case sub judice, no appellate judgment was announced and journalized

by this court that reviewed Bronczyk’s conviction and sentence as rendered in State v.

Bronczyk, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-540345. Thus, this court is prevented from

considering Bronczyk’s application for reopening as made pursuant to App.R. 26(B).

State v. Loomer, 76 Ohio St.3d 398, 1996-Ohio-59, 667 N.E.2d 1209; See also State v.

Halliwell, 8th Dist. No. 70369, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 285 (Jan. 28, 1999).

Accordingly, the application for reopening is denied.

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, JUDGE

FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., P.J., and MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J., CONCUR