State v. Cowan

2015 Ohio 4271

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: October 9, 2015
• Docket: 100741
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Cowan, 2015-Ohio-4271.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 100741

STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

vs.

CRAIG A. COWAN DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

JUDGMENT: APPLICATION DENIED

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-11-550536-A Application for Reopening Motion No. 487463

RELEASE DATE: October 9, 2015 FOR APPELLANT

Craig A. Cowan, pro se Inmate No. 622-034 Grafton Correctional Institution 2500 South Avon-Belden Road Grafton, Ohio 44044

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Timothy J. McGinty Cuyahoga County Prosecutor By: Joseph J. Ricotta Brett Hammond Assistant County Prosecutors 8th Floor Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 LARRY A. JONES, SR., P.J.:

{¶1} Craig A. Cowan has filed a second App.R. 26(B) application for reopening of

the appellate judgment that was rendered by this court in State v. Cowan, 8th Dist.

Cuyahoga No. 100741, 2014-Ohio-3593.

{¶2} On February 25, 2015, this court denied Cowan’s initial application for

reopening on the basis of untimely filing and the fact that the issue of merger of the

offenses of having weapons while under disability, improperly handling firearms in a

motor vehicle, and discharge of a firearm on or near a prohibited premises was addressed

upon appeal. On July 20, 2015, Cowan filed a second App.R. 26(B) application for

reopening.

{¶3} Once again, Cowan has failed to establish good cause for the untimely filing

of his application for reopening, which was filed more than 90 days after journalization of

the appellate judgment on August 21, 2014. Thus, we are required to deny the untimely

filed application for reopening. State v. Gumm, 103 Ohio St.3d 162, 2004-Ohio-4755,

814 N.E.2d 861; State v. Cooey, 73 Ohio St.3d 411, 1995-Ohio-328, 653 N.E.2d 252;

State v. Reddick, 72 Ohio St.3d 88, 1995-Ohio-248, 647 N.E.2d 784.

{¶4} Of greater significance is the fact that Cowan is not permitted to file a second

application for reopening. State v. Twyford, 106 Ohio St.3d 176, 2005-Ohio-4380, 833

N.E.2d 289. “[T]here is no right to file successive applications for reopening” under

App.R. 26(B). State v. Williams, 99 Ohio St.3d 179, 2003- Ohio-3079, 790 N.E.2d 299, ¶ 12. See also State v. Cooey, 99 Ohio St.3d 345, 2003-Ohio-3914, 792 N.E.2d 720;

State v. Richardson, 74 Ohio St.3d 235, 1996-Ohio-258, 658 N.E.2d 273. “[A] prisoner

has no right to file successive applications for reopening. Once ineffective assistance of

counsel has been raised and adjudicated, res judicata bars its relitigation.” State v.

Cheren, 73 Ohio St.3d 137, 138, 1995-Ohio-28, 652 N.E.2d 707. See also State v.

Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 226 N.E.2d 104 (1967).

{¶5} Accordingly, the application for reopening is denied.

LARRY A. JONES, SR., PRESIDING JUDGE

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., and EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR