[Cite as State v. Lenhart, 2019-Ohio-1113.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio 

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

 JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 74332

STATE OF OHIO

 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE 

vs. 

CHRISTOPHER LENHART 

 DEFENDANT-APPELLANT 

JUDGMENT:

APPLICATION DENIED 

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Case No. CR-356977 

Application for Reopening 

Motion No. 525109 

 RELEASE DATE: March 27, 2019 
FOR APPELLANT

Christopher Lenhart, pro se 

Inmate No. 0193824 

Cuyahoga County Jail 

P.O. Box 5600 

Cleveland, Ohio 44101 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Michael C. O’Malley 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

By: Anthony Thomas Miranda 

Assistant County Prosecutor 

Justice Center, 8th Floor 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 

RAYMOND C. HEADEN, J.: 

{¶1} Applicant, Christopher Lenhart, seeks to reopen his appeal in State v. Lenhart, 8th 

Dist. Cuyahoga No. 74332, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 3379 (July 22, 1999). For the reasons that 

follow, we deny the application. 

Procedural and Factual History

{¶2} Lenhart was convicted of one count of rape and one count of felonious assault in 

1998. After sentencing, the trial court held a sexual offender classification hearing and 

classified Lenhart as a sexually oriented offender, the lowest level of sexual offender available at 

the time. See State v. Bodyke, 126 Ohio St.3d 266, 2010-Ohio-2424, 933 N.E.2d 753,  24. 
{¶3} Lenhart filed a timely direct appeal from his convictions. The appellate decision 

issued in this case was journalized on July 22, 1999. There, this court affirmed the convictions 

and sentences, overruling appellant’s five assignments of error. 

{¶4} On January 17, 2019, almost 20 years later, Lenhart filed the instant application for 

reopening. In his application, he asserts that he was denied due process and equal protection of 

the law related to his classification as a sexually oriented offender. In his application, he does 

not advance any argument as to good cause for his untimely filing, how appellate counsel was 

ineffective, or include an affidavit supporting his contentions as required by App.R. 26(B)(2)(d). 

 The state timely opposed the application. 

Law and Analysis

I. Good Cause for an Untimely Application 

{¶5} App.R. 26(B) provides a limited means to reopen a criminal appeal based on a claim 

that appellate counsel was ineffective. The window to file such an application is not unlimited. 

 App.R. 26(B)(1) provides that the application must be filed within 90 days of the date of 

journalization of the appellate decision unless the applicant is able to establish good cause for 

filing at a later date. 

{¶6} App.R. 26(B)(2)(b) further states that an application filed after this 90-day window 

must contain a showing of good cause for the untimely filing before the application may be 

considered. This requirement has been upheld by the Ohio Supreme Court as a reasonable 

procedural requirement. State v. Wickline, 74 Ohio St.3d 369, 658 N.E.2d 1052 (1996); State v. 

Gumm, 103 Ohio St.3d 162, 2004-Ohio-4755, 814 N.E.2d 861, State v. LaMar, 102 Ohio St.3d 

467, 2004-Ohio-3976, 812 N.E.2d 970. 
{¶7} Lenhart’s application is devoid of any explanation for his almost 20-year delay in 

filing the instant application or argument why this delay should be excused. As such, it is 

untimely without a showing of good cause for the delayed filing. This is sufficient reason to 

deny the application without addressing the merits of the claim. State v. Keith, 119 Ohio St.3d 

161, 2008-Ohio-3866, 892 N.E.2d 912,  8; State v. Williams, 129 Ohio St.3d 19, 

2011-Ohio-232, 950 N.E.2d 140,  9. 

{¶8} Application denied. 

 

RAYMOND C. HEADEN, JUDGE 

EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, P.J., and 

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR