[Cite as State v. Bell, 2013-Ohio-3802.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

 EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

 COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

 ___________________________________

 JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 96446 

 ___________________________________

STATE OF OHIO

 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE 

vs.

DEONTA BELL

 DEFENDANT-APPELLANT 

JUDGMENT: 

APPLICATION DENIED

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Case No. CR-542463 

Application for Reopening 

Motion No. 467550 

RELEASE DATE: September 3, 2013 
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Deonta Bell, pro se 

A 600-014 

Marion Correctional Institution 

P.O. Box 57 

Marion, Ohio 43302 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Timothy J. McGinty 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

By: Alison Foy 

Assistant County Prosecutor 

8th Floor Justice Center 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J.: 

{¶1} Applicant, Deonta Bell, pled guilty and was sentenced on convictions of 

burglary and assault in Cuyahoga C.P. Nos. CR-542463 and CR-539985. Applicant, 

through counsel, pursued an appeal. We affirmed the trial court’s judgment in State v. 

Bell, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 96446, 2011-Ohio-5667. Applicant now seeks to reopen 

the appeal pursuant to App.R. 26(B). 

{¶2} The appellate judgment was journalized on November 3, 2011. The 

application for reopening was not filed until August 19, 2013. This falls well outside the 

time limits of App.R. 26(B)(1), which requires applications to be filed within 90 days 

after journalization of the appellate judgment. The only exception that would permit us to 

review an untimely application is if applicant establishes good cause for filing at a later 

time. Id. 

{¶3} The Supreme Court of Ohio, with regard to the 90-day deadline provided by 

App.R. 26(B)(2)(b), has firmly established that 

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 applicant] could have retained new attorneys after the court of 

appeals issued its decision in 1994, or he could have filed the application on 

his own. What he could not do was ignore the rule’s filing deadline. * ** 

The 90-day requirement in the rule is “applicable to all appellants,” State v. 

Winstead (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 277, 278, 1996 Ohio 52, 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. 

State v. Lamar, 102 Ohio St.3d 467, 2004-Ohio-3976, 812 N.E.2d 970, ¶ 7-9. 
{¶4} “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.” State v. Gumm, 103 Ohio St.3d 162, 2004-Ohio-4755, 

814 N.E.2d 861, ¶ 7. Applicant does not address the issue of his untimely application, 

and he does not argue that any good cause exists for the late filing. Therefore, the 

untimely application for reopening must be denied. State v. Garcia, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga 

No. 74427, 2005-Ohio-5796, ¶ 3. 

{¶5} Accordingly, this court denies the application to reopen. 

 

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, JUDGE 

MARY J. BOYLE, P.J., and 

TIM McCORMACK, J., CONCUR