State v. Rogers

2015 Ohio 3472

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: August 25, 2015
• Docket: 100248
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Rogers, 2015-Ohio-3472.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 100248

STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

vs.

ALFRED ROGERS DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

JUDGMENT: APPLICATION DENIED

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-08-518986 Application for Reopening Motion No. 486377

RELEASE DATE: August 25, 2015 FOR APPELLANT

Alfred Rogers, pro se Inmate No. 574184 Southern Ohio Correctional Institution P.O. Box 45699 Louisville, Ohio 45699

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Timothy J. McGinty Cuyahoga County Prosecutor By: Anthony Thomas Miranda Assistant County Prosecutor 8th Floor Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 LARRY A. JONES, SR., P.J.:

{¶1} Alfred Rogers has filed an application for reopening pursuant to App.R.

26(B). Rogers is attempting to reopen the appellate judgment rendered by this court in

State v. Rogers, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100248 (Aug. 13, 2013). For the following

reasons, Rogers’s application for reopening is not well taken.

{¶2} Initially, we find that App.R. 26(B) is not applicable to the facts pertinent to

the appeal in App. No. 100248. No appellate judgment, which reviewed Rogers’s plea

of guilty to the offense of involuntary manslaughter, has been announced and journalized

by this court. This court denied Rogers’s motion for a delayed appeal and dismissed the

appeal on September 3, 2013. Thus, we are prevented from considering Rogers’s

application for reopening. State v. Skaggs, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 76301, 1999 Ohio

App. LEXIS 4680 (Sept. 21, 1999). See also State v. Loomer, 76 Ohio St.3d 398, 667

N.E.2d 1209 (1996); State v. Halliwell, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 70369, 1999 Ohio App.

LEXIS 285 (Jan. 28, 1999); State v. Fields, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 68906, 1997 Ohio

App. LEXIS 4109 (Sept. 5, 1997); State v. Williams, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 69936, 1996

Ohio App. LEXIS 4796 (Oct. 31, 1996).

{¶3} Finally, even if Rogers were permitted to file an application for reopening,

App.R. 26(B)(2)(b) requires that Rogers establish a showing of good cause for untimely

filing if the application for reopening is filed more than 90 days after journalization of the

appellate judgment, which is subject to reopening. Herein, Rogers is attempting to reopen the order of dismissal journalized on September 3, 2013. Rogers’s application for

reopening was not filed until June 9, 2015, more than 90 days after journalization of the

order of dismissal in App. No. 100248. Rogers has failed to establish good cause for the

untimely filing of his application for reopening. Thus, we would be required to deny his

application for reopening. State v. Gumm, 103 Ohio St.3d 162, 2004-Ohio-4755, 814

N.E.2d 861; State v. LaMar, 102 Ohio St.3d 467, 2004-Ohio-3976, 812 N.E.2d 970.

{¶4} Application for reopening is denied.

LARRY A. JONES, SR., PRESIDING JUDGE

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., and SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR