[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, 2019FOR 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, s eeks 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 tria l court held a sexual offende r 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. Th e 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, Le nhart filed the instant application for reopening. In his application, he asserts that he was denied due process and equa l protection of

the law related to his classificati on as a sexually oriented offende r. 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 affi davit 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 re open a criminal appeal based on a claim that appellate counsel wa s ineffective. The window to file such an application is not unlimited. App.R. 26(B)(1) provides that the application mu st be filed within 90 days of the date of journalization of the appe llate decision unless the applicant is able to establish good cause for filing at a later date. {¶6} App.R. 26(B)(2)(b) further stat es that an application f iled after this 90-day window must contain a showing of good cause for the untimely filing before th e 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 expl anation 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 addre ssing 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