State v. Sharp, 87709 (9-30-2008)

Ohio Court of Appeals

State v. Sharp, 87709 (9-30-2008)

2008 Ohio 5096

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 30, 2008

DocketNo. 87709.

StatusUnpublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 2008 Ohio 5096 (State v. Sharp, 87709 (9-30-2008)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Sharp, 87709 (9-30-2008), 2008 Ohio 5096 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION *Page 3 {¶ 1} Michael Sharp has filed an application for reopening pursuant to App. R. 26(B). He is attempting to reopen the appellate judgment inState v. Sharp, Cuyahoga App. No. 87709, 2006-Ohio-6413. For the following reasons, we decline to reopen his appeal.

{¶ 2} Sharp has failed to timely file his application for reopening. The appellate judgment in State v. Sharp was journalized on December 18, 2006, while his application for reopening was not filed until May 19, 2008. App. R. 26(B)(2)(b) requires that Sharp establish "a showing of good cause for untimely filing if the application is filed more than ninety days after journalization of the appellate judgment," which is subject to reopening. The Ohio Supreme Court, with regard to the ninety-day deadline set forth in App. R. 26(B)(2)(b), has firmly established that absent a showing of "good cause" for filing late, an application for reopening must be filed within ninety days of journalization of the appellate judgment that is subject to reopening. (Emphasis added.) State v. Keith, 119 Ohio St.3d 161, 2008-Ohio-3866,892 N.E.2d 912. See, also, 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. *Page 4

{¶ 3} Herein, Sharp argues that the recent decision of the Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Colon, 118 Ohio St.3d 26, 2008-Ohio-1624,885 N.E.2d 917, provides "good cause" for the untimely filing of his application for reopening. Specifically, Sharp argues that he was not able to file his application for reopening until the Ohio Supreme Court rendered its decision in Colon.

{¶ 4} Sharp's argument for "good cause," however must fail. An App. R. 26(B) application for reopening must be premised upon a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. State v. Murnahan (1992),63 Ohio St.3d 60, 584 N.E.2d 1204. Appellate counsel cannot be required to anticipate future changes in the law and argue such potential changes on appeal. State v. Williams (1991), 74 Ohio App.3d 686, 600 N.E.2d 298.

{¶ 5} In addition, the Ohio Supreme Court recently reconsideredColon and held that "[O]ur holding in Colon I is only prospective in nature, in accordance with our general policy that newly declared constitutional rules in criminal cases are applied prospectively, not retrospectively." See State v. Colon, Slip Opinion No. 2008-Ohio-3749, ¶ 3.

{¶ 6} Accordingly, Sharp's application for reopening is denied.

CHRISTINE T. MCMONAGLE, J., and ANN DYKE, J., CONCUR

*Page 1

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION *Page 3 {¶ 1} Michael Sharp has filed an application for reopening pursuant to App. R. 26(B). He is attempting to reopen the appellate judgment inState v. Sharp, Cuyahoga App. No. 87709, 2006-Ohio-6413. For the following reasons, we decline to reopen his appeal.

{¶ 2} Sharp has failed to timely file his application for reopening. The appellate judgment in State v. Sharp was journalized on December 18, 2006, while his application for reopening was not filed until May 19, 2008. App. R. 26(B)(2)(b) requires that Sharp establish "a showing of good cause for untimely filing if the application is filed more than ninety days after journalization of the appellate judgment," which is subject to reopening. The Ohio Supreme Court, with regard to the ninety-day deadline set forth in App. R. 26(B)(2)(b), has firmly established that absent a showing of "good cause" for filing late, an application for reopening must be filed within ninety days of journalization of the appellate judgment that is subject to reopening. (Emphasis added.) State v. Keith, 119 Ohio St.3d 161, 2008-Ohio-3866,892 N.E.2d 912. See, also, 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. *Page 4

{¶ 3} Herein, Sharp argues that the recent decision of the Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Colon, 118 Ohio St.3d 26, 2008-Ohio-1624,885 N.E.2d 917, provides "good cause" for the untimely filing of his application for reopening. Specifically, Sharp argues that he was not able to file his application for reopening until the Ohio Supreme Court rendered its decision in Colon.

{¶ 4} Sharp's argument for "good cause," however must fail. An App. R. 26(B) application for reopening must be premised upon a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. State v. Murnahan (1992),63 Ohio St.3d 60, 584 N.E.2d 1204. Appellate counsel cannot be required to anticipate future changes in the law and argue such potential changes on appeal. State v. Williams (1991), 74 Ohio App.3d 686, 600 N.E.2d 298.

{¶ 5} In addition, the Ohio Supreme Court recently reconsideredColon and held that "[O]ur holding in Colon I is only prospective in nature, in accordance with our general policy that newly declared constitutional rules in criminal cases are applied prospectively, not retrospectively." See State v. Colon, Slip Opinion No. 2008-Ohio-3749, ¶ 3.

{¶ 6} Accordingly, Sharp's application for reopening is denied.

CHRISTINE T. MCMONAGLE, J., and ANN DYKE, J., CONCUR

*Page 1

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2008 Ohio 5096, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-sharp-87709-9-30-2008-ohioctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack