Case Title: State v. Reddick

Citation: 1995-Ohio-249

Docket Number: 19942056

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1995-04-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO                               
     The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of                      
Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27,                      
1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice                   
Thomas J. Moyer.                                                                 
     Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's                   
Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio.  Attention:  Walter S.                      
Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative                         
Assistant.  Tel.:  (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010.                       
Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome.                            
     NOTE:  Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the                  
full texts of the opinions after they have been released                         
electronically to the public.  The reader is therefore advised                   
to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West                       
Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions.                     
The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume                    
and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound                   
volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.                                            
                                                                                 
The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Reddick, Appellant.                              
[Cite as State v. Reddick (1995),             Ohio St.                           
3d                   .]                                                          
Appellate procedure -- Application for reopening appeal from                     
     judgment and conviction based on claim of ineffective                       
     assistance of appellate counsel -- Application denied when                  
     applicant fails to establish good cause for failing to                      
     file within ninety days after journalization of the court                   
     of appeals' decision affirming the conviction, as required                  
     by App.R. 26(B).                                                            
     (No. 94-2056 -- Submitted February 7, 1995 -- Decided                       
April 26,1995.)                                                                  
     Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No.                   
50814.                                                                           
     In 1985, appellant, Ocie Reddick, was convicted of                          
aggravated murder with gun and mass murder specifications and                    
attempted murder with a gun specification and sentenced to                       
consecutive terms of imprisonment of twenty years to life on                     
the aggravated murder conviction, three years' actual                            
incarceration on a single gun specification, and ten to                          
twenty-five years on the attempted murder conviction with ten                    
years' actual incarceration.  The Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga                  
County affirmed the convictions and sentences.  State v.                         
Reddick (May 7, 1987), Cuyahoga App. No. 50814, unreported.                      
     It is agreed that on August 31, 1993, appellant filed an                    
application to reopen his appeal in the court of appeals,                        
alleging the ineffective assistance of his appellate counsel                     
for failure to raise errors apparent on the face of the                          
record.  The court of appeals struck appellant's first                           
application, but granted leave to file an amended application,                   
which appellant did within the time allotted.  The court of                      
appeals then considered the amended application and denied it                    
for failure to show good cause why the application was not                       
filed within ninety days after the appellate judgment sought to                  
be reopened was journalized, as required by App. R. 26 (B) (2)                   
(b).1 Appellant appeals the denial to this court, contending                     
that requiring him to comply with App. R. 26 (B) (2) (b) denies                  
him due process of law..                                                         
                                                                                 
     Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting                          
Attorney, and L. Christopher Frey, Assistant Prosecuting                         
Attorney, for appellee.                                                          
     Paul Mancino, Jr., for appellant.                                           
                                                                                 
     Per Curiam.  The court of appeals held that appellant is                    
required to show good cause why he did not file an application                   
to reopen his appellate judgment, even though it was                             
journalized over six years before App. R. 26 (B) took effect on                  
July 1, 1993.  Appellant argues that to apply the good-cause                     
requirement of App. R. 26 (B) (2) (b) to him is a denial of due                  
process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment to the                             
Constitution of the United States.  We agree with the court of                   
appeals for the following reasons.                                               
     App. R. 26 (B) took effect on July 1, 1993.  Appellant's                    
application to reopen his appeal was effectively filed nunc pro                  
tunc on August 31, 1993.  It is therefore subject to the rule.                   
     App. R. 26 (B) (2) (b) requires an application filed more                   
than ninety days after journalization of the appellate judgment                  
sought to be reopened to show good cause for the untimely                        
filing.  The judgment appellant seeks to reopen was filed on                     
May 7, 1987.  Appellant's amended application makes no attempt                   
to establish good cause.  Therefore, facially, it violates App.                  
R. 26 (B) (2) (b).                                                               
     Appellant argues, however, that due process requires App.                   
R. 33(M) to be invoked.  This rule states that amendments to                     
the Rules of Appellate Procedure that took effect on July 1,                     
1993 govern proceedings brought after that date, "except to the                  
extent that their application in a particular action pending                     
when the amendments take effect would not be feasible or would                   
work injustice, in which case the former procedure                               
applies."(Emphasis added.)  We reject this argument.                             
Appellant's action was not pending on July 1, 1993.                              
     Appellant also argues that the procedure prescribed in                      
State v.  Murnahan (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 60, 584 N.E.2d 1204,                    
not App. R. 26 (B), should apply to him.  We agree in part.  In                  
Murnahan, we held, in paragraph three of the syllabus, that a                    
person claiming ineffective assistance of appellate counsel                      
could present his claims under App. R. 26 (now App. R. 26 [A])                   
and App. R. 14 (B).  Former App. R. 26 provided for a motion                     
for reconsideration before the judgment was filed with the                       
clerk for journalization or within ten days after announcement                   
of the court's decision, whichever was earlier.  Former App. R.                  
14 (B) provided for an enlargement of time to do an act "for                     
good cause shown."  Hence, a requirement to show good cause for                  
failure to file a timely claim of ineffective assistance of                      
appellate counsel has existed at least since Murnahan was                        
decided and arguably before, as Murnahan procedure was based on                  
then-extant rules.                                                               
     We hold, therefore, that the good-cause requirement of                      
App. R. 26 (B) succeeds and incorporates the good-cause                          
requirement of Murnahan and former App. R. 14 (B).                               
Accordingly, an applicant who seeks to reopen an appellate                       
judgment journalized before July 1, 1993 may not simply rely on                  
the fact that App. R. 26 (B) did not exist within the ninety                     
days following jounalization of the appellate judgment, but                      
must show good cause why he or she did not attempt to invoke                     
the procedures available under former App. R. 26 and 14 (B).                     
Neither Murnahan nor App. R. 26 (B) was intended as an open                      
invitation for persons sentenced to long periods of                              
incarceration to concoct new theories of ineffective assistance                  
of appellate counsel in order to have a new round of appeals.                    
Rather, both were intended to allow the belated presentation of                  
colorable claims that defendants/appellants were prevented from                  
presenting timely by particular circumstances .  Lack of effort                  
or imagination, and ignorance of the law, are not such                           
circumstances and do not automatically establish good cause for                  
failure to seek timely relief.                                                   
     In the present case, appellant made no attempt to show                      
good cause why he did not file an appropriate motion or                          
application for relief for over six years after the appellate                    
judgment he now seeks to reopen was journalized.  Accordingly,                   
we hold that he did not comply with App. R. 26 (B) (2) (b), and                  
the court of appeals correctly denied his application to reopen                  
his appeal.                                                                      
                                       Judgment affirmed.                        
     Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney,                        
Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur.                                                   
                                                                                 
FOOTNOTES:                                                                       
1.   App. R.26(B) states in part:                                                
     "(1) A defendant in a criminal case may apply for                           
reopening of the appeal from the judgment of conviction and                      
sentence, based on a claim of ineffective assistance of                          
appellate counsel.  An application for reopening shall be filed                  
in the court where the appeal was decided within ninety days                     
from journalization of the appellate judgment unless the                         
applicant shows good cause for filing at a later time.                           
     "(2) An application for reopening shall contain all of the                  
following:                                                                       
     "* * *                                                                      
     "(b) a showing of good cause for untimely filing if the                     
application is filed more than ninety days after journalization                  
of the appellate judgment * * *."