State v. Williamson

2013 Ohio 3358

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: July 31, 2013
• Docket: 95732
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Williamson, 2013-Ohio-3358.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 95732

STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

vs.

CORTEZ WILLIAMSON DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

JUDGMENT: APPLICATION DENIED

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-534287 Application for Reopening Motion No. 466506

RELEASE DATE: July 31, 2013 FOR APPELLANT

Cortez Williamson, pro se Inmate No. 591-503 Trumbull Correctional Institution P.O. Box 901 Leavittsburg, Ohio 44430

ATTORNEY OR APPELLEE

Timothy McGinty Cuyahoga County Prosecutor

By: Blaise D. Thomas Assistant County Prosecutors 8th Floor Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, J.:

{¶1} Cortez Williamson has filed an application for reopening pursuant to App.R.

26(B). Williamson is attempting to reopen the appellate judgment, as rendered in State

v. Williamson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 95732, 2011-Ohio-4095, which affirmed his

conviction for the offenses of murder, discharging a firearm near a prohibited premises,

tampering with evidence, and carrying a concealed weapon. We decline to reopen

Williamson’s appeal.

{¶2} App.R. 26(B)(2)(b) requires that Williamson 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

Supreme Court of Ohio, with regard to the 90-day deadline as provided by App.R.

26(B)(2)(b), has recently established that:

We now reject [the applicant’s] claims that those excuses gave good cause to miss the 90-day deadline in App.R. 26(B). * * * 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 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-248, 647 N.E.2d 784.

{¶3} 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.

{¶4} Herein, Williamson is attempting to reopen the appellate judgment that was

journalized on August 18, 2011. The application for reopening was not filed until July

10, 2013, more than 90 days after journalization of the appellate judgment in State v.

Williamson, supra. Williamson has failed to establish “a showing of good cause” for the

untimely filing of his application for reopening. State v. Klein, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.

58389, Ohio App. LEXIS 1346 (Apr. 8, 1991), reopening disallowed (Mar. 15, 1994),

Motion No. 49260, aff’d, 69 Ohio St.3d 1481, 634 N.E.2d 1027 (1994); State v.

Trammell, 8th Dist. No. 67834, 1995 Ohio App. LEXIS 2962 (July 24, 1995),

reopening disallowed (Apr. 22, 1996), Motion No. 70493; State v. Travis, 8th Dist.

Cuyahoga No. 56825, 1990 Ohio App. LEXIS 1356 (Apr. 5, 1990), reopening disallowed

(Nov. 2, 1994), Motion No. 51073, aff’d, 72 Ohio St.3d 317, 1995-Ohio-152, 649 N.E.2d

1226. See also State v. Gaston, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 79626, 2007-Ohio-155; State v.

Torres, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 86530, 2007-Ohio-9.

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

PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, JUDGE MARY EILEEN KILBANE, P.J., and EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR