[Cite as State v. Mathis, 2015-Ohio-295.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio 

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 91830 

STATE OF OHIO 

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE 

vs. 

 PRESTON MATHIS 

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT 

JUDGMENT: 

APPLICATION DENIED

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Case No. CR-08-507908 

Application for Reopening 

Motion No. 479639 

RELEASE DATE: January 28, 2015 
APPELLANT 

Preston Mathis, pro se 

#551-527 

Lorain Correctional Institution 

2075 South Avon Belden Road 

Grafton, Ohio 44044 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Timothy J. McGinty 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

Brett Hammond 

Assistant County Prosecutor 

The Justice Center - 9th Floor 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J.: 

{¶1} Preston Mathis has filed an application for reopening pursuant to App.R. 26(B). 

Mathis is attempting to reopen the appellate judgment rendered in State v. Mathis, 8th Dist. 

Cuyahoga No. 91830, 2009-Ohio-3289, that affirmed his conviction and sentence for the 

offenses of murder and having weapons while under disability. We decline to reopen Mathis’s 

appeal. 

{¶2} App.R. 26(B)(2)(b) requires that Mathis establish “a showing of good cause for 

untimely filing if the application is filed more than 90 days after journalization of the appellate 

judgment” that is subject to reopening. The Supreme Court of Ohio, with regard to the 90-day 

deadline provided by App.R. 26(B)(2)(b), has established that 

[w]e 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, ¶ 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, 653 N.E.2d 252 (1995); State v. Reddick, 72 Ohio St.3d 88, 647 N.E.2d 784 

(1995). 
{¶3} Herein, Mathis is attempting to reopen the appellate judgment that was 

journalized on July 2, 2009. The application for reopening was not filed until October 24, 2014, 

more than 90 days after journalization of the appellate judgment in Mathis, supra. In an attempt 

to establish good cause for the untimely filing of his application for reopening, Mathis argues that 

[b]eing unfamiliarized by experience, study, or practice of the law; during and 

following the previous appeal procedures conducted by appellate counsel, 

Appellant had not faculty of mind from which he could have possibly deduced 

knowledge of his counsel’s deficient presentation of such an inadequate and 

ineffective appeal. In the absence of being informed of his rights pertaining to 

the issues he is now presenting to this Honorable Court for review, it is his 

impervious assertion that these issues are such as could not in the exercise of his 

due diligence have been discovered and presented before now. 

 

{¶4} Mathis has failed to establish a showing of good cause for the untimely filing of 

his application for reopening. Lack of legal training and ignorance of the law does not establish 

good cause for failure to seek timely relief pursuant to App.R. 26(B). Reddick. See also State 

v. Klein, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 58389, 1991 Ohio App. LEXIS 1346 (Mar. 28, 1991), 

reopening disallowed (Mar. 15, 1994), Motion No. 249260, aff’d, 69 Ohio St.3d 1481, 634 

N.E.2d 1027 (1994); State v. Trammell, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 67834, 1995 Ohio App. LEXIS 

2962 (July 13, 1995), reopening disallowed (Apr. 22, 1996), Motion No. 270493; State v. 

Travis, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 56825, 1990 Ohio App. LEXIS 1356 (Apr. 5, 1990), reopening 

disallowed (Nov. 2, 1994), Motion No. 251073, aff’d, 72 Ohio St.3d 317, 649 N.E.2d 1226 

(1995); State v. Gaston, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 79626, 2007-Ohio-155; State v. Torres, 8th Dist. 

Cuyahoga No. 86530, 2007-Ohio-9. 

{¶5} In addition, limited access to the prison library and legal materials have been 

repeatedly rejected as good cause for the untimely filing of an App.R. 26(B) application for 

reopening. State v. Kinder, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 94722, 2012-Ohio-1339. Finally, reliance 
on one’s attorney does not provide good cause for the untimely filing of an application for 

reopening. In State v. Pruitt, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 86707 and 86986, 2012-Ohio-94, and 

State v. Alt, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 96289, 2012-Ohio-2054, this court held that appellate 

counsel’s failure to inform the defendant as to the availability of App.R. 26(B) did not establish 

good cause for filing an untimely application for reopening. 

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

 

 

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, JUDGE 

FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., A.J., and 

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., CONCUR