[Cite as State v. Onunwor, 2013-Ohio-4184.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

 EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

 COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

 ___________________________________

 JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 93937 

 ___________________________________

STATE OF OHIO

 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE 

vs.

CLIFTON ONUNWOR

 DEFENDANT-APPELLANT 

JUDGMENT: 

APPLICATION DENIED

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Case No. CR-517054 

Application for Reopening 

Motion No. 467933 

RELEASE DATE: September 24, 2013 
APPELLANT

Clifton Onunwor, pro se 

Inmate No. 572-374 

Lebanon Correctional Institution 

P.O. Box 56 

Lebanon, Ohio 45036 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Timothy J. McGinty 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

By: Lisa M. Stickan 

Assistant County Prosecutor 

8th Floor Justice Center 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J.: 

{¶1} Cliffton Onunwor has filed an application for reopening pursuant to App.R. 

26(B). Onunwor is attempting to reopen the appellate judgment rendered in State v. 

Onunwor, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 93937, 2010-Ohio-5587, which affirmed his 

conviction for the offenses of aggravated murder and tampering with evidence. We 

decline to reopen Onunwor’s appeal. 

{¶2} App.R. 26(B)(2)(b) requires that Onunwor 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 Supreme Court of Ohio, 

with regard to the 90-day deadline as provided by App.R. 26(B)(2)(b), has established 

that: 

We 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, at ¶ 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, 1995-Ohio-328, 653 N.E.2d 252; State v. Reddick, 72 Ohio 

St.3d 88, 1995-Ohio-248, 647 N.E.2d 784 

{¶3} Herein, Onunwor is attempting to reopen the appellate judgment that was 

journalized on November 18, 2010. The application for reopening was not filed until 

August 18, 2013, more than 90 days after journalization of the appellate judgment in 

Onunwor, supra. Onunwor argues that “good cause” for his untimely filing is 

established by his limited access to the prison law library. The courts, however, have 

repeatedly rejected the claim that limited access to a law library and legal materials states 

good cause for untimely filing. Prison riots, lockdowns, and other library limitations 

have also been rejected as constituting good cause. State v. Tucker, 73 Ohio St.3d 152, 

1995-Ohio-2, 652 N.E.2d 720; State v. Kaszas, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 72546 and 

72547, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 4227 (Sept. 10, 1998), reopening disallowed, 2000 Ohio 

App. LEXIS 3755 (Aug. 14, 2000); State v. Hickman, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 72341, 

Ohio App. LEXIS 1893 (Apr. 30, 1998), reopening disallowed, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 

6079 (Dec. 13, 2000), and State v. Turner, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 55960 (Nov. 16, 

1989), reopening disallowed, 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 3774 (Aug. 20, 2001). 

{¶4} Onunwor has failed to establish “a showing of good cause” for the untimely 

filing of his application for reopening. State v. Klein, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 58389, 

Ohio App. LEXIS 1346 (Apr. 8, 1991), reopening disallowed (Mar. 15, 1994), Motion 

No. 49260, 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 24, 1995), reopening 

disallowed (Apr. 22, 1996), Motion No. 70493; State v. Travis, 8th Dist. 
Cuyahoga No. 56825, 1990 Ohio App. LEXIS 1356 (Apr. 5, 1990), reopening 

disallowed (Nov. 2, 1994), Motion No. 51073, aff’d, 72 Ohio St.3d 317, 1995-Ohio-152, 

649 N.E.2d 1226. See also State v. Gaston, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 79626, 

2007-Ohio-155; State v. Torres, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 86530, 2007-Ohio-9. 

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

 

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, JUDGE 

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, P.J., and 

KENNETH A. ROCCO, J., CONCUR