State v. Martin

2026 Ohio 924

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: March 18, 2026
• Docket: 113955
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Martin, 2026-Ohio-924.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE OF OHIO, :

Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 113955 v. :

JOSEPH MARTIN, JR., :

Defendant-Appellant. :

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: APPLICATION DENIED RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: March 18, 2026

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-23-679189-A Application for Reopening Motion No. 592534

Appearances:

Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Matthew W. Moretto, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Joseph Martin, Jr., pro se.

TIMOTHY W. CLARY, J.:

Joseph Martin, Jr. (“Martin”), pro se, has filed an application for

reopening pursuant to App.R. 26(B) and State v. Murnahan, 63 Ohio St.3d 60 (1991), based on claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Martin is

attempting to reopen the appellate judgment rendered in State v. Martin, 2025-

Ohio-744 (8th Dist.), in which this court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, finding

that the trial court did not err in imposing consecutive sentences.

For the reasons that follow, we deny Martin’s application to reopen the

appeal.

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

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.

Applications claiming ineffective assistance of appellate counsel must be filed within

90 days from journalization of the appellate judgment, unless the applicant shows

good cause for the untimely filing. App.R. 26(B)(1) and (B)(2)(b).

This court issued its decision on Martin’s appeal on March 6, 2025,

nearly one year before the filing of the instant application. Thus, Martin’s

application for reopening is untimely on its face.

Martin acknowledges his application is untimely and cites lack of notice

and abandonment by his appellate counsel as the reason for his delay. This

argument is unpersuasive.

The Ohio Supreme Court has recognized that App.R. 26’s 90-day

requirement “is ‘applicable to all appellants’” and must be strictly enforced. State v.

LaMar, 2004-Ohio-3976, ¶ 9, quoting State v. Winstead, 74 Ohio St.3d 277, 278

(1996), State v. Williams, 2025-Ohio-614, ¶ 7 (8th Dist.). “Consistent enforcement of the rule’s deadline by the appellate courts in Ohio protects on the one hand the

state’s legitimate interest in the finality of its judgments and ensures on the other

hand that any claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel are promptly

examined and resolved.” State v. Gumm, 2004-Ohio-4755, ¶ 7.

We have previously held that the failure of appellate counsel to notify a

defendant-appellant of the judgment of the court of appeals, as Martin asserts here,

is not good cause for the untimely filing of an application for reopening. State v. Alt

2012 Ohio App. LEXIS 1803, * 4 (8th Dist. May 9, 2012), citing State v. Mitchell,

2007-Ohio-6190 (8th Dist.), reopening disallowed, 2009-Ohio-1874. “‘Lack of

effort or imagination, and ignorance of the law . . . do not automatically establish

good cause for failure to seek timely relief’ under App.R. 26(B).” LaMar at ¶ 9,

quoting State v. Reddick, 72 Ohio St.3d 88, 91 (1995). Indeed, even “identifying

meritorious claims,” i.e., “dead-bang winners,” is not sufficient to establish good

cause for an untimely filing. See, e.g., State v. Williams, 2025-Ohio-614, ¶ 7-8 (8th

Dist.) (noting that in Lamar and Gumm, the Ohio Supreme Court held that the 90-

day deadline for filing applications to reopen an appeal under App.R. 26(B) “must

be strictly enforced”).

“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, 2024-Ohio-2714, ¶ 21.

“Where an application for reopening is not timely filed and the application fails to

allege good cause for the delay, the application must be denied.” State v. Chandler, 2022-Ohio-1391, ¶ 9 (8th Dist.). Martin has failed to show good cause necessary to

excuse the significant delay in the filing of his application and, therefore, his

application must be denied.

Application denied.

_____________________ TIMOTHY W. CLARY, JUDGE

MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, P.J., and MICHAEL JOHN RYAN, J., CONCUR