[Cite as State v. Harrison,
2012-Ohio-4397.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 77929
STATE OF OHIO
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
vs.
LORENZO HARRISON
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
JUDGMENT:
APPLICATION DENIED
Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court
Case No. CR-382422
Application for Reopening
Motion No. 456524
RELEASE DATE: September 21, 2012
FOR APPELLANT
Lorenzo W. Harrison, pro se
Inmate No. 563-687
Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
P.O. Box 45699
Lucasville, Ohio 45699
ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT
William D. Mason
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
By: Daniel T. Van
Assistant County Prosecutor
Justice Center, 8th Floor
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, J.:
{¶1} Lorenzo Harrison has filed an application for reopening pursuant to App.R.
26(B). Harrison is attempting to reopen the appellate judgment rendered in State v.
Harrison, 8th Dist. No. 77929 (Dec. 6, 2001), which affirmed his conviction for the
offense of aggravated arson. We decline to reopen Harrison’s appeal.
{¶2} App.R. 26(B)(2)(b) requires that Harrison establish “a showing of good
cause for untimely filing if the application is filed more than 90 days after journalization
of the appellate judgment,” which is subject to reopening. The Ohio Supreme Court,
with regard to the 90-day deadline provided by App.R. 26(B)(2)(b), has recently
established that:
… 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.
State v. Gumm, 103 Ohio St.3d 162,
2004-Ohio-4755,
814 N.E.2d 861, ¶ 7-8, 10. 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, Harrison is attempting to reopen the appellate judgment that was
journalized on December 6, 2001. The application for reopening was not filed until July
2, 2012, more than 90 days after journalization of the appellate judgment in Harrison.
In an attempt to establish good cause for the untimely filing of the application for
reopening, Harrison argues that he had difficulty in obtaining a copy of the trial transcript
and other evidentiary materials. In addition, Harrison argues the existence of a separate
appeal obviated the need to file a timely application for reopening. Harrison has failed
to establish “a showing of good cause” for the untimely filing of his application for
reopening. Difficulty in obtaining a transcript or other legal materials does not establish
good cause for the untimely filing of an application for reopening. State v. Houston, 73
Ohio St.3d 346,
1995-Ohio-317,
652 N.E.2d 1018. In addition, the existence of another
appeal or legal action, on behalf of Harrison, does not establish good cause for missing
the filing deadline. Gumm; Lamar. See also State v. Klein, 8th Dist. No. 58389,
1991
Ohio App. LEXIS 1346 (Mar. 28, 1991), reopening disallowed, Motion No. 49260 (Mar.
15, 1994), 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 13, 1995), reopening disallowed,
Motion No. 70493 (Apr. 22, 1996); State v. Travis, 8th Dist. No. 56825,
1990 Ohio App.
LEXIS 1356 (Apr. 5, 1990), reopening disallowed, Motion No. 51073 (Nov. 3, 1994),
aff’d,
72 Ohio St.3d 317,
1995-Ohio-152,
649 N.E.2d 1226. See also State v. Gaston,
8th Dist. No. 79626,
2007 Ohio App. LEXIS 147 (Jan. 17, 2007); State v. Torres, 8th
Dist. No. 86530,
2007-Ohio-9.
{¶4} Accordingly, the application for reopening is denied.
COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, JUDGE
MELODY J. STEWART, P.J., and
MARY J. BOYLE, J., CONCUR
