State v. Garcia-Toro

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: May 8, 2026
• Docket: 107940
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Garcia-Toro, 2026-Ohio-1761.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE OF OHIO, :

Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 107940 v. :

CARLOS GARCIA-TORO, :

Defendant-Appellant. :

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: APPLICATION DENIED RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: May 8, 2026

Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-17-621593-A Application for Reopening Motion No. 593862

Appearances:

Carlos Garcia-Toro, pro se.

LISA B. FORBES, J.:

On March 27, 2026, Carlos Garcia-Toro (“Garcia-Toro”) applied to

reopen this court’s judgment in State v. Garcia-Toro, 2019-Ohio-5336 (8th Dist.), in which this court affirmed Garcia-Toro’s convictions and sentence for aggravated

murder and attempted murder.1

Pursuant to App.R. 26(B) and State v. Murnahan, 63 Ohio St.3d 60

(1992), a defendant in a criminal case may apply to reopen an appeal from a

judgment of conviction and sentence based on a claim of ineffective assistance of

appellate counsel. The appellate rules impose time restraints on such applications.

“AppR. 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.” State v. Crawford,

2025-Ohio-2591, ¶ 2 (8th Dist.). “The existence of good cause is a threshold issue

that must be established before an appellate court may reach the merits of a claim

of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.” State v. Wogenstahl, 2007-Ohio-

4792, ¶ 7.

Garcia-Toro’s March 27, 2026 application is untimely under

App.R. 26, having been filed more than six years after this court’s 2019 decision

affirming his conviction and sentence. Attempting to show good cause for his late

filing, Garcia-Toro argues that appellate counsel did not inform him of the 90-day

deadline to apply to reopen this appeal. He also asserts that he has had limited

access to a library, inhibiting his ability to prepare his application.

1 Discretionary appeal not allowed, 04/14/2020 Case Announcements, 2020-

Ohio-1393, State v. Garcia-Toro, No. 2020-0202, cert. denied, __ U.S. ___, 141 S.Ct. 575 (2020). We are not persuaded by these arguments. An applicant’s lack of legal

training and ignorance of procedures related to reopening an appeal does not

constitute good cause for an untimely filing. State v. Evans, 2026-Ohio-448, ¶ 7

(8th Dist.); accord State v. Farrow, 2007-Ohio-4792, ¶ 6 (Applicant “cannot rely

on his own alleged lack of legal training” to demonstrate good cause for

noncompliance with 90-day deadline to reopen his appeal.). We have also “rejected,

on numerous occasions, ‘claims that . . . library limitations constitute good cause for

untimely filing.’” Evans, quoting State v. Tomlinson, 2022-Ohio-2575, ¶ 12 (8th

Dist.).

Lastly, we note that Garcia-Toro alleges his counsel “went rogue and

filed . . . Supreme Court Jurisdictional Appeals and a federal Habeus Corpus”

without Garcia-Toro’s knowledge. The Ohio Supreme Court has “rejected the

argument that continued representation provide[s] good cause” for a late

application to reopen an appeal from conviction and sentence. Crawford, 2025-

Ohio-2591, at ¶ 5 (8th Dist.). See State v. Gumm, 2004-Ohio-4755, ¶ 8-9, quoting

State v. Davis, 86 Ohio St.3d 212, 214 (1999) (“To be sure . . . ‘counsel cannot be

expected to argue their own ineffectiveness.’ Other attorneys — or [the Applicant]

himself — could have pursued the application, however.”). We do not find that Garcia-Toro demonstrated good cause for his late

filing. Accordingly, we deny the application to reopen.

LISA B. FORBES, JUDGE

MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, A.J., and SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR