Title: State v. White

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

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. White, Appellant.                                
[Cite as State v. White (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 his application within ninety days after                               
     journalization of the court of appeals' decision affirming                  
     the conviction, as required by App.R. 26(B).                                
     (No. 94-2467--Submitted February 7, 1995 -- Decided April                   
26,1995.)                                                                        
     Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No.                   
57944.                                                                           
     According to the court of appeals' opinion, appellant,                      
Frederick White, was convicted of aggravated murder and                          
felonious assault with firearm specifications. The appellate                     
court vacated one of the felonious assault counts, but affirmed                  
the remaining convictions.  State v. White (Jan. 31, 1991),                      
Cuyahoga App. No. 57944, unreported.  It is undisputed that on                   
February 16, 1994, appellant filed an application to reopen his                  
appeal pursuant to App. R. 26 (B), alleging ineffective                          
assistance of appellate counsel.  Attached to the application                    
was counsel's affidavit stating that any delay in filing the                     
application was due to counsel's heavy work load and was not                     
caused by appellant.  Nevertheless, the court of appeals held                    
that appellant had failed to establish good cause for filing                     
the application more than ninety days after the appellate                        
judgment was journalized, as required by App. R. 26 (B) (1) and                  
(2) (b).  The court also held that appellant's claims had                        
previously been raised on direct appeal and were, therefore,                     
res judicata.  Appellant now appeals to this court.                              
                                                                                 
     Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting                          
Attorney, and George J. Sadd, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney,                    
for appellee.                                                                    
     David H. Bodiker, Ohio Public Defender, Kort Gatterdam,                     
Assistant Public Defender, and Gloria Eyerly, Chief Counsel,                     
for appellant.                                                                   
                                                                                 
     Per Curiam.  The judgment of the court of appeals is                        
affirmed for the reasons stated in its opinion.                                  
                                       Judgment affirmed.                        
     Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and                    
Cook, JJ., concur.                                                               
     Wright, J., dissents.                                                       
     Wright, J., dissenting.  I must respectfully dissent                        
because I believe that this court should not take such a rigid                   
attitude toward standards that will suffice for "good cause."                    
     As evidence of good cause, defense counsel in this case                     
filed an affidavit that stated, in part: "Due to our office's                    
overwhelming caseload and my personal heavy caseload, I was                      
unable to review the merits of Mr. White's case until late                       
1993.  The delay in filing this application is an unavoidable                    
consequence of our statutory mandate (R.C. 120.06) to review                     
any inmates ['s] claim that he is unlawfully incarcerated.  The                  
delay was not caused by Appellant, Rick White."                                  
     The court of appeals held that this did not establish good                  
cause for the untimely filing of an application for reopening.                   
The court premised its reasoning on the fact that counsel is                     
charged with full knowledge of the time limitations of App.R.                    
26(B).  State v. Klein (Apr. 8, 1991), Cuyahoga App. No. 58389,                  
unreported, reopening disallowed (Mar. 15, 1994), affirmed                       
(1994), 69 Ohio St. 3d 1481, 634 N.E.2d 1027.  The court                         
further reasoned that the lack of counsel does not excuse an                     
applicant from filing a timely application for reopening.                        
State v. McCarter (Apr. 8, 1993), Cuyahoga App. No. 62346,                       
unreported, reopening disallowed (Aug. 12, 1994).                                
     The application of both premises defies the realities                       
present in our system and ignores the concept of justice.                        
     It was not lack of knowledge of the time limitations of                     
App.R. 26(B) that prevented counsel from filing the application                  
for reopening within ninety days.  It is well known that the                     
Office of the Public Defender is understaffed and overworked                     
with a heavy caseload.  For numerous reasons, it is almost                       
impossible for a public defender to meet the ninety-day                          
requirement for filing an application for reopening in this                      
type of case.  Particularly relevant is the fact that most                       
public defenders do not even receive the request for assistance                  
of counsel until after the ninety-day requirement has expired.                   
Also relevant is the fact that with over forty thousand                          
potential clients, it defies reality to believe that the Public                  
Defender will be able to identify, review and file an                            
application for reopening within ninety days.  The effect of                     
the rigid application proposed by the court of appeals and                       
affirmed by the majority is that an indigent, incarcerated, and                  
uncounseled appellant is being denied the fundamental                            
constitutional rights that App.R. 26(B) was designed to protect.                 
     As for the assertion that lack of counsel does not excuse                   
the untimely application for reopening, the majority places a                    
great deal of faith in the ability of a layperson, within                        
ninety days, to realize that his appellate counsel was                           
ineffective, realize why the appellate counsel was ineffective,                  
and understand how to ask the court of appeals to address the                    
ineffectiveness.  All this when, in most cases, the indigent                     
incarcerated inmate does not receive the court of appeals'                       
decision from his or her appellate lawyer in a timely fashion,                   
if at all.  My word, what a statute!                                             
     The court of appeals quotes, at length, Drake v. Bucher                     
(1966), 5 Ohio St.2d 37, 34 O.O.2d 53, 213 N.E.2d 182, which                     
discusses the importance of adhering to the rules of the                         
court.  I agree with the premise that in the interest of                         
judicial economy and for the protection of individuals, the                      
rules of the court must be followed.  However, the rules should                  
not be followed so rigidly that fundamental constitutional                       
rights are jeopardized or destroyed as in the case before us.                    
     Accordingly, I must respectfully dissent.