State v. Szorady

2011 Ohio 5148

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Szorady, 2011-Ohio-5148.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 95045

STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

vs.

JOHN F. SZORADY DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

JUDGMENT: APPLICATION DENIED

Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Case No. CR-526119 Application for Reopening Motion No. 446145

RELEASE DATE: October 4, 2011 2

FOR APPELLANT

John F. Szorady, pro se Inmate No. 582-893 Mansfield Correctional Institution P.O. Box 788 Mansfield, Ohio 44901

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

William D. Mason Cuyahoga County Prosecutor

By: Kristen L. Sobieski Assistant County Prosecutors 9th Floor, Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113

COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, J.:

{¶ 1} John F. Szorady has filed an application for reopening pursuant to App.R.

26(B). Szorady is attempting to reopen the appellate judgment in State v. Szorady,

Cuyahoga App. No. 95045, 2011-Ohio-1800, which affirmed his conviction and sentence

for the offenses of rape, sexual battery, pandering, intimidation, and possessing criminal

tools. We decline to reopen Szorady’s appeal.

{¶ 2} App.R. 26(B)(2)(b) requires that Szorady establish “a showing of good

cause for untimely filing if the application is filed more than 90 days after journalization 3

of the appellate judgment,” which is subject to reopening. The Supreme Court of Ohio,

with regard to the 90-day deadline provided by App.R. 26(B)(2)(b), has firmly established

that:

“We now reject [the applicant’s] claim that those excuses gave him good cause to miss the 90-day deadline in App.R. 26(B). The rule was amended to include the 90-day deadline more than seven months before [the applicant’s] appeal of right was decided by the court of appeals in February 1994, so the rule was firmly established then, just as it is today. 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.

“Ohio and other states ‘may erect reasonable procedural requirements for triggering the right to an adjudication,’ Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co. (1982), 455 U.S. 422, 437, 102 S.Ct 1148, 71 L.Ed 2d 265, and that is what Ohio has done by creating a 90-day deadline for the filing of applications to reopen. [The applicant] could have retained new attorneys after the court of appeals issued its decision in 1994, or he could have filed the application on his own. What he could not do was ignore the rule’s filing deadline. * * * The 90-day requirement in the rule is ‘applicable to all appellants,’ State v. Winstead (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 277, 278, 658 N.E.2d 722, and [the applicant] offers no sound reason why he — unlike so many other Ohio criminal defendants — could not comply with that fundamental aspect of the rule.” (Emphasis added.) State v. Gumm, 103 Ohio St.3d 162, 2004-Ohio-4755, 814 N.E.2d 861, at ¶7. See, also, State v. LaMar, 102 Ohio St.3d 467, 2004-Ohio-3976, 812 N.E.2d 970; 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-249, 647 N.E.2d 784.

{¶ 3} Herein, Szorady is attempting to reopen the appellate judgment that was

journalized on April 14, 2011. The application for reopening was not filed until July 15,

2011, more than 90 days after journalization of the appellate judgment in Szorady.

Szorady has failed to establish “a showing of good cause” for the untimely filing of his 4

application for reopening. State v. Klein (Apr. 8, 1991), Cuyahoga App. No. 58389,

reopening disallowed (Mar. 15, 1994), Motion No. 49260, affirmed (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d

1481; State v. Trammell (July 24, 1995), Cuyahoga App. No. 67834, reopening

disallowed (Apr. 22, 1996), Motion No. 70493; State v. Travis (Apr. 5, 1990), Cuyahoga

App. No. 56825, reopening disallowed (Nov. 2, 1994), Motion No. 51073, affirmed

(1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 317. See, also, State v. Gaston (Jan. 1, 2007), Cuyahoga App. No.

79626; State v. Torres, Cuyahoga App. No. 86530, 2007-Ohio-9.

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

______________________________________________ COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, JUDGE

JAMES J. SWEENEY, P.J., and LARRY A. JONES, J., CONCUR