[Cite as State v. Gray, 2012-Ohio-3565.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 92646 

STATE OF OHIO

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE 

vs. 

RICARDO GRAY

 DEFENDANT-APPELLANT 

JUDGMENT:

APPLICATION DENIED

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Case No. CR-369837 

Application for Reopening 

Motion No. 454323

RELEASE DATE: August 3, 2012 
-iFOR APPELLANT, PRO SE

Ricardo Gray 

Inmate No. 368-431 

Richland Correctional Institution 

P.O. Box 8107 

Mansfield, Ohio 44901 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

William D. Mason 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

Kristen L. Sobieski 

Assistant County Prosecutor 

8th Floor Justice Center 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 
PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, A.J.: 

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

Gray seeks to reopen the appellate judgment rendered in State v. Gray, 8th Dist. No. 

92646, 2010-Ohio-11, which affirmed his conviction for murder and felonious assault. We 

decline to grant the application for reopening. 

{¶2} App.R. 26(B)(2)(b) requires that Gray 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 provided by App.R. 26(B)(2)(b), has firmly 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} Gray is attempting to open the appellate judgment journalized on January 7, 

2010. The application for reopening was not filed until April 18, 2012, more than 90 days 

after journalization of the appellate judgment in Gray. Gray has failed in his effort to 

establish “good cause,” with regard to the untimely filing of his application for reopening. 

 Defendant’s pursuit of other remedies, including an appeal to the Supreme Court of Ohio, 

is an election of remedies, and thus does not provide good cause for a late filing of his 

application to reopen his judgment. State v. Hornack, 8th Dist. No. 81021, 

2005-Ohio-5843. Likewise, neither misplaced reliance on counsel nor lack of 

communication between counsel and appellant provides good cause for a late filing of 

his application for reopening. See State v. Alt, 8th Dist. No. 96289, 2012-Ohio-2054; 

State v. Austin, 8th Dist. No. 87169, 2012-Ohio-1338; State v. Alexander, 8th Dist No. 

81529, 2004-Ohio-3861. 

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

 

 

PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE 

COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, J., and 

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., CONCUR