[Cite as State v. Goodykoontz, 2024-Ohio-2063.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE OF OHIO, :

Plaintiff-Appellee, :

No. 112016

v. :

DAVID GOODYKOONTZ, :

Defendant-Appellant. :

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: APPLICATION DENIED

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: May 28, 2024

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas

Case Nos. CR-19-641800-A and CR-20-647818-A

Application for Reopening

Motion No. 572997

Appearances:

Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Cuyahoga

Prosecuting Attorney, and Sarah E. Hutnik, Assistant 

Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 

David Goodykoontz, pro se.

EMANUELLA D. GROVES, J.:

David Goodykoontz has filed an application for reopening pursuant to 

App.R. 26(B). Goodykoontz is attempting to reopen the appellate judgment 

rendered in State v. Goodykoontz, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 112016, 2023-Ohio-3243
that affirmed his convictions and sentences imposed in Case No. CR-19-641800-A, 

gross sexual imposition, and Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-20-647818-A, multiple counts 

of pandering sexually oriented matter involving a minor, illegal use of a minor in 

nudity-oriented material or performance, and possession of criminal tools. We 

decline to reopen Goodykoontz’s appeal.

App.R. 26(B)(2)(b) requires that Goodykoontz 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).

Herein, Goodykoontz is attempting to reopen the appellate judgment 

that was journalized on September 14, 2023. The application for reopening was not 

filed until March 18, 2024, more than 90 days after journalization of the appellate 

judgment in Goodykoontz, supra. Goodykoontz, in an effort to establish good cause 

for the untimely filing of his application for reopening, argues that he was unable to 

access the prison law library to complete his application for reopening and timely 

file it within 90-days of journalization of the appellate judgment subject to 

reopening.

Goodykoontz has not established a valid basis for the untimely filing of 

his App.R. 26(B) application for reopening. This court has repeatedly rejected the 

claim that limited access to legal materials or the prison law library states good cause 

for untimely filing. State v. Martin, 7th Dist. Columbiana No. 18-CO-0033, 2021-

Ohio-4290; State v. Howard, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 107467, 107468, and 107469, 

2020-Ohio-4739; State v. Onunwor, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 93937, 2010-OhioOhio-5587. Further, prison riots, lockdowns, and other library limitations have 

been rejected as constituting good cause. State v. Kaszas, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos.

72546 and 72547, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 4227 (Sept. 21, 1988), reopening

disallowed (Aug. 14, 2000), Motion No. 16752, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 3755; State

v. Hickman, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 72341, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 1893 (Apr. 30,

1998), reopening disallowed (Dec. 13, 2000), Motion No. 20830; State v. Turner, 
8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 55960 (Nov. 16, 1989), reopening disallowed (Aug. 20, 

2001), Motion No. 23221; and State v. Stearns, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 76513, 2000

Ohio App. LEXIS 3161 (July 24, 2000), reopening disallowed (Feb. 14, 

2002), Motion No. 27761, 2002 Ohio App. LEXIS 770.

Also, in State v. Lamar, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 49550 and 49551, 

1985 Ohio App. LEXIS 7284 (Oct. 3, 1985), reopening disallowed (Nov. 15, 1995), 

Motion No. 63398, this court held that lack of communication with appellate 

counsel did not show good cause. See also State v. Jarrells, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 

99329, 2014-Ohio-4564. Similarly, in State v. White, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 57944, 

1991 Ohio App. LEXIS 357 (Jan. 31, 1991), reopening disallowed (Oct. 19, 1994), 

Motion No. 49174 and State v. Allen, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 65806, 1994 Ohio App. 

LEXIS 4956 (Nov. 3, 1994), reopening disallowed (July 8, 1996), Motion No. 67054, 

wherein this court rejected reliance on counsel as showing good cause. In State v. 

Fortson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 72229, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 6104 (Dec. 17, 1998), 

reopening disallowed (Jan. 23, 2001), Motion No. 18195, 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 

245, this court ruled that an attorney’s delay in notification of an appellate decision 

does not establish good cause. See also State v. Congress, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 

102867, 2018-Ohio-4521; State v. Moss, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 62318 and 62322, 

1993 Ohio App. LEXIS 2491 (May 13, 1993), reopening disallowed (Jan. 16, 1997), 

Motion No. 75838; State v. McClain, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 67785, 1995 Ohio App. 

LEXIS 3207 (Aug. 3, 1995), reopening disallowed (Apr. 15, 1997), Motion No. 76811; 

and State v. Russell, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 69311, 1996 Ohio App. LEXIS 1879 
(May 9, 1996), reopening disallowed (June 16, 1997), Motion No. 82351, 1997 Ohio 

App. LEXIS 2663.

It must also be noted that lack of knowledge or ignorance of the law 

does not provide sufficient cause for the untimely filing of an application for 

reopening. State v. Klein, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 58389, 1991 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. Cummings, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 69966, 

1996 Ohio App. LEXIS 4565 (Oct. 17, 1996), reopening disallowed (Mar. 26, 1998), 

Motion No. 92134; and State v. Young, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 66768 and 66769, 

1994 Ohio App. LEXIS 4634 (Oct. 13, 1994), reopening disallowed (Dec. 5, 1995), 

Motion No. 66164.

Accordingly, we find that Goodykoontz has failed to establish good 

cause for the untimely filing of his application for reopening.

Application denied.

EMANUELLA D. GROVES, JUDGE

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, P.J., and

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR