[Cite as State v. Martin, 2021-Ohio-4290.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COLUMBIANA COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

WILLIAM E. MARTIN, II, 

Defendant-Appellant.

 

OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY 

Case No. 18 CO 0033 

 

Motion to Reopen 

BEFORE: 

Gene Donofrio, Cheryl L. Waite, Carol Ann Robb, Judges. 

JUDGMENT: 

Denied 

Atty. Robert Herron, Prosecutor, Atty. Ryan Weikart, Assistant Prosecutor, 

Columbiana County Prosecutor’s Office, 105 South Market Street, Lisbon, Ohio 

44432, for Plaintiff-Appellee and 

Atty. Rhys Cartwright-Jones, 42 North Phelps Street, Youngstown, Ohio 44503, for 

Defendant-Appellant. 

 
 – 2 – 

Case No. 18 CO 0033

Dated: 

December 6, 2021 

 

PER CURIAM. 

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, William Martin II, has filed an application for reopening 

of his direct appeal from his convictions for having weapons while under disability, 

possession of cocaine, possession of heroin, possession of marijuana, trafficking in 

heroin, two major drug offender specifications, and one forfeiture specification. State v. 

Martin, 7th Dist. Columbiana No. 18 CO 0033, 2020-Ohio-3579, appeal not allowed, 160 

Ohio St.3d 1439, 2020-Ohio-4983, 155 N.E.3d 943. For the following reasons, the 

application is denied. 

{¶2} An application to reopen an appeal must 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). 

{¶3} Our judgment in this case was filed on June 26, 2020. Appellant filed his 

application on September 27, 2021, one year past the deadline. Thus, the application is 

untimely. 

{¶4} If the application is filed more than 90 days after journalization of the 

appellate judgment, then it must contain “[a] showing of good cause for untimely filing in 

the application.” App.R. 26(B)(2)(b). In his application, appellant asserts he has good 

cause for his delay. He claims that when this court issued its decision, the Belmont 

Correctional Institution, where he is serving his sentence, was not offering law library 

services to the inmates due to the COVID-19 pandemic. He claims he did not have 

access to the prison law library until early 2021, and even then his access was limited. 

{¶5} The Eighth District Court of Appeals has repeatedly rejected the argument 

that restricted access to the law library is good cause for late filing of an application to 

reopen: 

[T]he courts have rejected the claim that limited access to legal materials 

states good cause for untimely filing. Prison riots, lockdowns, and other 

library limitations have been rejected as constituting good cause. State v. 

Tucker, 73 Ohio St.3d 152, 1995-Ohio-2; State v. Kaszas (Sept. 21, 1998), 
 – 3 – 

Case No. 18 CO 0033

Cuyahoga App. Nos. 72547 and 72547, reopening disallowed (Aug. 14, 

2000), Motion No. 316752; State v. Hickman (Apr. 30, 1998), Cuyahoga 

App. No. 72341, reopening disallowed (Dec. 13, 2000), Motion No. 320830 

and State v. Turner (Nov. 16, 1989), Cuyahoga App. No. 55960, reopening 

disallowed (Aug. 20, 2001), Motion No. 323221. Moreover, the Supreme 

Court of Ohio in State v. Lamar, 102 Ohio St.3d 467, 2004-Ohio-3976, 812 

N.E.2d 970, and State v. Gumm, 103 Ohio St.3d 162, 2004-Ohio-4755, 814 

N.E.2d 861, held that the 90-day deadline for filing must be strictly enforced. 

The Court reaffirmed the principle that lack of effort, imagination, and 

ignorance of the law do not establish good cause for not complying with this 

fundamental aspect of the rule. Untimeliness alone is sufficient to dismiss 

the application. 

State v. Wynn, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 93057, 2010-Ohio-5469, ¶ 3. 

{¶6} Moreover, on March 27, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 state of 

emergency, the Ohio Supreme Court issued an order entitled “Tolling of Time 

Requirements Imposed by Rules Promulgated by the Supreme Court and Use of 

Technology.” In re Rules of Practice of Supreme Court of Ohio, 158 Ohio St.3d 1469, 

2020-Ohio-1461, 142 N.E.3d 706. This order “immediately tolled all time requirements 

imposed by rules promulgated by the Court set to expire between March 9, 2020, and the 

expiration of Executive Order 2020-01D or July 30, 2020, whichever is sooner[.]” Id. We 

filed our judgment in appellant’s direct appeal on June 26, 2020. Appellant filed his 

application on September 27, 2021, well past the expiration of the tolling order. 

{¶7} Thus, appellant has not asserted “good cause” as is required by the 

Appellate Rule for his untimely filing. 

{¶8} For the above reasons, appellant’s application to reopen his appeal is 

hereby denied. 
 – 4 – 

Case No. 18 CO 0033

JUDGE GENE DONOFRIO 

JUDGE CHERYL L. WAITE 

JUDGE CAROL ANN ROBB 

 

NOTICE TO COUNSEL 

This document constitutes a final judgment entry.