[Cite as State v. Wilkins, 2012-Ohio-3681.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

 EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

 COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

 

 JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 88389 

 

STATE OF OHIO 

 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE 

 vs.

MARCUS WILKINS

 DEFENDANT-APPELLANT 

JUDGMENT: 

APPLICATION DENIED

Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court 

Case No. CR-468565 

Application for Reopening 

Motion No. 457199 

RELEASE DATE: August 16, 2012 
APPELLANT 

Marcus Wilkins, Pro Se 

No. 504-727 

Lorain Correctional Institution 

2075 South Avon-Belden Road 

Grafton, Ohio 44044

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

William D. Mason, Esq. 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

By: Matthew E. Meyer, Esq. 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 
JAMES J. SWEENEY, P.J.: 

{¶1} In State v. Wilkins, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-468565, applicant was convicted 

of aggravated murder and intimidation of a crime victim or a witness, both with firearm 

specifications. This court affirmed that judgment in State v. Wilkins, 8th Dist. No. 

88389, 2007-Ohio-2504. 

{¶2} Applicant has filed with the clerk of this court an application for reopening. 

 Applicant asserts that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel 

because appellate counsel did not assign as error that trial counsel was ineffective. We 

deny the application for reopening. As required by App.R. 26(B)(6), the reasons for our 

denial follow. 

{¶3} Initially, we note that App.R. 26(B)(1) provides, in part: “An application for 

reopening shall be filed * * * within ninety days from journalization of the appellate 

judgment unless the applicant shows good cause for filing at a later time.” App.R. 

26(B)(2)(b) requires that an application for reopening include “a showing of good cause 

for untimely filing if the application is filed more than ninety days after journalization of 

the appellate judgment.” 

{¶4} This court’s decision affirming Wilkins’s conviction was journalized on 

June 4, 2007. The application was filed on July 27, 2012, clearly in excess of the 

ninety-day limit. 
{¶5} Wilkins states that he was unable to perfect an appeal to the Supreme Court 

of Ohio because he is not an attorney. He also indicates that he had no knowledge of his 

right to file an application for reopening. This court has observed repeatedly, however, 

that being a lay person, ignorance of the law and reliance on counsel are not grounds for 

establishing good cause. See, e.g., State v. Arcuri, 8th Dist. No. 84435, 

2008-Ohio-1083. 

{¶6} In the application, Wilkins also states: “Moreover, shortly after I was 

sentenced my grandmother passed, and the day I received this court’s judgment affirming 

the convictions, my mother was diagnosed with cancer, and ultimately passed as well, 

which took a serious toll on me.” Application at 4. Although we recognize that life’s 

circumstances present challenges, we must apply the established standards to determine 

whether a party has presented good cause for filing an untimely application for reopening. 

 

{¶7} Initially, we note that Wilkins indicates that the death of his grandmother 

occurred shortly after his sentencing. The entry memorializing the trial court’s sentence 

was journalized on June 2, 2006. This court’s judgment affirming the trial court’s 

judgment was released on May 24, 2007 and journalized on June 4, 2007. Wilkins has 

not provided this court with any authority for the proposition that an event occurring 

approximately one year prior to the commencement of the 90-day period for filing an 

application for reopening is a basis for determining that the appellant had good cause for 

the untimely filing of an application for reopening. 
{¶8} Regarding his mother’s illness, Wilkins indicates that her diagnosis 

coincided with the release of this court’s judgment. He does not specify the duration of 

that illness, however. 

{¶9} This court has held that the applicant’s own physical illness is not 

necessarily good cause for the untimely filing of an application for reopening. Rather, 

the applicant must establish that the illness prevented him or her from filing a timely 

application. See, e.g., State v. Demars, 8th Dist. No. 62148, 2006-Ohio-3833. 

Likewise, this court has also held that the existence of applicant’s mental illness does not 

necessarily provide good cause for the untimely filing of an application for reopening. 

Rather, we have held that the applicant must demonstrate that the mental illness prevented 

the timely filing of an application for reopening. State v. Austin, 8th Dist. No. 87169, 

2012-Ohio-1338. 

{¶10} We reach a similar conclusion regarding Wilkins’s assertions that the 

losses in his family demonstrate good cause for a five-year delay in the filing of his 

application for reopening. Wilkins has not demonstrated that his grandmother’s death 

and his mother’s illness and death caused the delay. As a consequence, we must hold 

that Wilkins has not shown good cause for the untimely filing of his application for 

reopening. 

{¶11} The Supreme Court has upheld judgments denying applications for 

reopening solely on the basis that the application was not timely filed and the applicant 

failed to show “good cause for filing at a later time.” App.R. 26(B)(1). See, e.g., State 
v. Gumm, 103 Ohio St.3d 162, 2004-Ohio-4755, 814 N.E.2d 861, and State v. LaMar, 102 

Ohio St.3d 467, 2004-Ohio-3976, 812 N.E.2d 970. Wilkins’s failure to demonstrate 

good cause is a sufficient basis for denying the application for reopening. See, e.g., 

State v. Almashni, 8th Dist. No. 92237, 2010-Ohio-898, reopening disallowed, 

2012-Ohio-349. 

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

_______________________________________________

JAMES J. SWEENEY, PRESIDING JUDGE 

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., and 

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J., CONCUR