[Cite as State v. Dudas , 2023
- Ohio
- 366.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
STATE OF OHIO , :

Plaintiff

- Appell ee , : No. 110573 v. : MICHAEL DUDAS , :

Defendant

- Appell ant

. :

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT : APPLICATION DENIED RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: February 7, 2023

Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas

Case No. CR

- 20
- 650250

- A Application for Reopening Motion No. 55 9063
Appearances: Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyah oga County Prosecuting Attorney , and Daniel Van , Assist ant Prosecut ing Attorney , for a ppell ee . Michael Dudas , pro se. EILEEN A. GALLAGHER , J.: {¶ 1} Michael Dudas has filed a second application for reopening pursuant to App.R. 26(B). Dudas is once again attempting to reopen the appellate judgment rendered in State v. Dudas , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No . 110573 , 20 22
- Ohio

- 931, thataffirmed his plea of guilty and sentence for the offenses of aggravated murder,

aggravated robbery, and misuse of a credit card imposed in State v. Dudas , Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR

- 20
- 650250

- A. We decline to reopen Dudas’ appeal because the second application for reopening is untimely filed as required by App.R. 26(B)(1) and there exists no right to file a second application for reopening. {¶ 2} The appellate judgment, subject to the application for reopening, was journalized on March 24, 2022. Dudas’ first App.R. 26(B) applicat ion for reopening was filed on June 28, 2022, and the second application for reopening was filed on October 19, 2022. Both applications for reopening were filed beyond the 90

- day period for the filing of a timely application for reopening as required by App.R. 26(B)(1). {¶ 3} App.R. 26(B)(2)(b) requires that Dudas establish “a showing of good cause for untimely filing if the application is filed more than 90 days after journalization of the appellate judgment” that is subject to reopening. The Supreme Court of Ohio, with regard to the 90

- day deadline provided by App.R. 26(B)(2)(b), has established that [w]e now reject [the applicant’s] claims that those excuses gave good cause to miss the 90

- day deadline in App.R. 26(B). * * * 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 res olved. Ohio and other states “may erect reasonable procedural requirements for triggering the right to an adjudication,” Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co. , 455 U.S. 422, 437, 102 S.Ct. 1148, 71 L.Ed.2d 265 (1982) ,and that is what Ohio has done by creating a 9 0
- day deadline for the

filing of applications to reopen. * * * The 90

- day requirement in the rule is “applicable to all appellants ,” State v. Winstead , 74 Ohio St.3d 277, 278, 658 N.E.2d 722 (1996) , and [the applicant] offers no sound reason why he

— unlik e so many other Ohio criminal defendants

— could not comply with that fundamental aspect of the rule. (Emphasis added.) State v. Gumm , 103 Ohio St.3d 162, 2004

- Ohio

- 4755, 814 N.E.2d 861, ¶ 7. See also State v. Lamar , 102 Ohio St.3d 467, 2004

- Ohio

- 3976, 812 N.E.2d 970; State v. Cooey , 73 Ohio St.3d 411, 653 N.E.2d 252 (1995); State v. Reddick , 72 Ohio St.3d 88, 647 N.E.2d 784 (1995). {¶ 4} Herein, Dudas is once again attempting to reopen the appellate judgment that was jou rnalized on March 24, 2022. The second application for reopening was filed on October 19, 2022, more than 90 days after journalization of the appellate judgment in Dudas , supra . Dudas has argued the delay in filing his first and second applications for r eopening, beyond the 90
- day period for timely filing, was the result of a delay in the prison mail system. This c ourt, however, has established that any delay associated or caused by a prison mail delivery system does not establish good cause for the unti mely filing of an application for reopening. State v. Black , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 108001, 2020

- Ohio

- 3278; State v. Campbell , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 105488, 2018

- Ohio

- 3494; State v. Harris , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104329, 2018

- Ohio

- 839. {¶ 5} Of greater signifi cance is the fact that Dudas is not permitted to file a second application for reopening. State v. Twyford , 106 Ohio St.3d 176, 2005

- Ohio

4380, 833 N.E.2d 289. There exists no right to file successive applications forreopening under App.R. 26(B). State v. Williams , 99 Ohio St.3d 179, 2003

- Ohio

3079, 790 N.E.2d 299 ; State v. Richardson , 74 Ohio St.3d 235, 658 N.E.2d 273 (1996); State v. Cheren , 73 Ohio St.3d 137, 138, 652 N.E.2d 707 (1995). {¶ 6} Accordingly, the second application for reopening is denied.

__ ______________________ EILEEN A. GALLAGHER , JUDGE
FRANK DANIEL CELEBREZZE , III, P. J., and LISA B. FORBES , J., CONCUR