[Cite as State v. Holman, 2012-Ohio-5705.]

 Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

 COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

 

 

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

Nos. 93869 and 93870 

 

 

STATE OF OHIO 

 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE 

 vs.

STEPHEN HOLMAN

 DEFENDANT-APPELLANT 

JUDGMENT: 

APPLICATION DENIED

Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court 

Case Nos. CR-500288 and CR-500286 

Application for Reopening 

Motion No. 459703 

RELEASE DATE: December 5, 2012 
-iFOR APPELLANT

Stephen Holman 

Inmate No. 572-063 

North Central Correctional Institution 

P.O. Box 1812 

Marion, Ohio 43301-1812

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Timothy J. McGinty 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

By: Michael E. Jackson 

Assistant County Prosecutor 

8th Floor Justice Center 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113
KENNETH A. ROCCO, P.J.: 

{¶1} On October 26, 2012, the applicant, Stephen Holman, pursuant to App.R. 26(B), 

applied to reopen this court’s judgment in State v. Holman, 8th Dist. Nos. 93869 and 93870, 

2010-Ohio-4886, in which this court affirmed Holman’s convictions and sentences for various 

counts of aggravated theft by deception, securing writings by deception, falsification, receiving 

stolen property, telecommunications fraud, and forgery. 1

 Holman complains that his 

appellate counsel was ineffective because he did not argue the exclusion of an expert witness, 

and the impossibility of committing these crimes as a loan officer.2

 For the following 

reasons, this court denies the application. 

{¶2} App.R. 26(B)(1) and (2)(b) require applications claiming ineffective assistance of 

appellate counsel to be filed within 90 days from journalization of the decision unless the 

applicant shows good cause for filing at a later time. The October 2012 application was filed 

approximately two years after this court’s decision. Thus, it is untimely on its face. In an 

effort to establish good cause, Holman states that in October 2010, his appellate counsel 

informed him as follows: this court had affirmed the convictions and sentences; he had a 

limited period of time to appeal to the Supreme Court of Ohio; if he desired further legal 

 1

A jury convicted Holman of these crimes for his role in a “mortgage fraud” scheme involving 

two pieces of property.

2

Holman argues that he could not have committed these acts as a loan officer, because on the 

date of certain transactions his temporary license as a loan officer had expired and he was no longer 

an employee of the involved mortgage broker. 
advice, he should retain private counsel or contact the public defender; and his attention to his 

case was in his best interest. Holman continues that because he is a layman and indigent, he 

sought legal advice in the prison’s library and appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio, which 

denied the appeal in May 2011. Holman then implies that he was then able to pursue his 

App.R. 26(B) application. 

{¶3} However, this fails to establish good cause for an untimely filing. The Supreme 

Court of Ohio in State v. LaMar, 102 Ohio St.3d 467, 2004-Ohio-3976, 812 N.E.2d 970, and 

State v. Gumm, 103 Ohio St.3d 162, 2004-Ohio-4755, 814 N.E.2d 861, rejected this argument 

and held that the ninety-day deadline for filing must be strictly enforced. In those cases, the 

applicants argued that after the courts of appeals decided their cases, their appellate lawyers 

continued to represent them, and their appellate lawyers could not be expected to raise their 

own incompetence. Although the supreme court agreed with this latter principle, it rejected 

the argument that continued representation provided good cause. In both cases, the court 

ruled that the applicants could not ignore the ninety-day deadline, even if it meant retaining 

new counsel or filing the applications themselves. The court then reaffirmed the principle 

that lack of effort, imagination, and ignorance of the law do not establish good cause for 

failure to seek timely relief under App.R. 26(B). Thus, Holman’s proffer that he could not 

submit his application to reopen until the Supreme Court of Ohio had finished its review does 

not state good cause. Furthermore, this court notes that pursuant to Holman’s Exhibit C1 to 
his application, he knew in December 2009, the arguments he raises now and that the Supreme 

Court of Ohio denied his appeal approximately 15 months ago. 

{¶4} Accordingly, this court denies the application to reopen. 

__________________________________________ 

KENNETH A. ROCCO, PRESIDING JUDGE 

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., and 

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR