[Cite as State v. Black, 2020-Ohio-3278.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

STATE OF OHIO, : 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, : 

 No. 108001 

 v. : 

 

RAYSHON L. BLACK, : 

 

 Defendant-Appellant. : 

 

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

 JUDGMENT: APPLICATION DENIED 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: June 10, 2020

 

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Case Nos. CR-17-613986-B, CR-17-614959-A, and CR-17-618389-A 

Application for Reopening 

Motion No. 536711 

 

Appearances: 

Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting 

Attorney and Anthony T. Miranda, Assistant Prosecuting 

Attorney, for appellee. 

Rayshon L. Black, pro se. 

MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, J.: 

On March 6, 2020, the applicant, Rayshon L. Black, pursuant to 

App.R. 26(B) and State v. Murnahan, 63 Ohio St.3d 60, 584 N.E.2d 1204 (1992), 

applied to reopen this court’s judgment in State v. Black, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 
108001, 2019-Ohio-4977, in which this court affirmed his convictions for rape and 

kidnapping of his stepdaughter. Black now asserts that his appellate counsel should 

have argued the following: (1) the prosecution engaged in misconduct by making 

inaccurate statements and asking leading questions that deprived Black of a fair 

trial, (2) there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction, and (3) the 

convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence because the verdicts 

were inconsistent.1 On March 23, 2020, Black filed a memorandum to show good 

cause for an untimely filing. The state filed its brief in opposition on March 25, 

2020. For the following reasons, this court denies the application to reopen. 

App.R. 26(B)(1) and (2)(b) require applications claiming ineffective 

assistance of appellate counsel to be filed within 90 days from journalization of the 

decision unless the applicant shows good cause for filing at a later time. This court 

issued its decision on December 5, 2019. Accordingly, Black’s application was due 

no later than March 4, 2020.2 Thus, his March 6, 2020 application is untimely on 

its face. 

In an effort to show good cause, Black explains that he placed the 

application into the prison’s outgoing mail on the 80th day of the limitations period, 

which would have been February 23, 2020. The prison staff notarized his required 

affidavits on February 25, and processed the cash slip on February 28, but did not 

 1 The grand jury also had indicted Black for gross sexual imposition, but the jury 

found him not guilty of that charge. 

2 Twenty-six (remaining days in December) + 31 (January) + 29 (February) + 4 = 

90. 
actually place the envelope into the outgoing mail until Monday, March 2, 2020. 

Thus, Black argues that the prison delays, not his lack of diligence, caused the 

untimely filing. 

However, the courts have ruled that delays in the mail do not 

constitute good cause for untimely filing. In State v. Winstead, 74 Ohio St.3d 277, 

1996-Ohio-52, 658 N.E.2d 722, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that a courier’s 

delay in delivery is not good cause for accepting an untimely App.R. 26(B) 

application to reopen. This court has also rejected inactions of the prison mail 

system as good cause for untimely filing. State v. Campbell, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 

105488, 2018-Ohio-3494, and State v. Nitsche, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 103174, 

2017-Ohio-529. Similarly, miscalculation of the time necessary to file the 

application timely does not state good cause. State v. Johnson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga 

No. 105612, 2018-Ohio-5151 and State v. Agosto, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 87283, 

2007-Ohio-848. In the latter two cases, the applications were filed only one day 

late. 

The court further rules that because the due date of Black’s 

application was March 4, 2020, the tolling provisions of Am.Sub.H.B. No. 197 and 

the Supreme Court of Ohio’s Administrative Actions order of March 27, 2020, do 

not apply. Those provisions are effective March 9, 2020, after the due date of Black’s 

application. 
Moreover, after reviewing the application, the court concludes that 

Black’s assignments of error do not present a genuine issue as to whether he was 

deprived of the effective assistance of appellate counsel. 

Accordingly, this court denies the application to reopen. 

 

MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, JUDGE 

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, P.J., and 

RAYMOND C. HEADEN, J., CONCUR