[Cite as State v. Hurt, 2012-Ohio-4268.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

 EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

 COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

 

 JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 96032 

 

STATE OF OHIO 

 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE 

 vs.

WILLIE HURT

 DEFENDANT-APPELLANT 

JUDGMENT: 

APPLICATION DENIED

Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court 

Case No. CR-514257 

Application for Reopening 

Motion No. 456110 

RELEASE DATE: September 14, 2012

-i- 
FOR APPELLANT 

Willie Hurt 

Inmate #563-360 

Lorain Correctional Institution 

2075 South Avon-Belden Road 

Grafton, OH 44044

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Willliam D. Mason 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

By: Diane Smilanick 

Assistant County Prosecutor 

Justice Center - 8th Floor 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, OH 44113 
KENNETH A. ROCCO, J.: 

{¶1} In State v. Hurt, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-514257, applicant, Willie Hurt, pled 

guilty to rape and gross sexual imposition. The entry memorializing his plea and 

imposing a sentence was journalized on March 19, 2009. On November 17, 2010, Hurt 

filed an appeal pro se and this court denied his motion for leave to file notice of appeal 

out of rule (instanter) and dismissed the appeal in State v. Hurt, 8th Dist. No. 96032, 

Entry Nos. 439452 and 439502 (Nov. 22, 2010). 

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

asserts that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel, despite the fact 

that he represented himself in his direct appeal. 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 dismissing Hurt’s appeal was journalized on November 

22, 2010. The application was filed on June 18, 2012, clearly in excess of the ninety-day 

limit. Hurt does not argue or demonstrate good cause for the untimely filing of his 

application for reopening. Compare State v. Welch, 8th Dist. No. 95577, 

2012-Ohio-3351 (denying an application for reopening as untimely when the applicant 

failed to argue or establish good cause under App.R. 26(B)(2)(b)). 

{¶5} 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. Applicant’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. 

{¶6} Additionally, Hurt represented himself in his direct appeal in Hurt, 8th Dist. 

No. 96032. “A defendant who represents himself or herself on direct appeal, however, 

may not maintain an application for reopening. State v. Gaston, Cuyahoga App. No. 

92242, 2009-Ohio-3080, reopening disallowed, 2009- Ohio-4715.” State v. Effinger, 8th 

Dist. No. 93450, 2009-Ohio-5242, ¶ 4. 

{¶7} As a consequence, Hurt has not met the standard for reopening. 
{¶8} Accordingly, the application for reopening is denied. 

_________________________________ 

KENNETH A. ROCCO, JUDGE 

PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, A.J., and 

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., CONCUR