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



## IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COLUMBIAN A COUNT Y

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, Cher y l L. Waite, Carol Ann Robb, Jud g es.

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 applicatio n for reopening of his direct appeal from his convictions for having weapons wh ile under disability, possession of cocaine, possession of heroin, possession of mari juana, trafficking in heroin, two major drug offender specifications, and one forfeit ure specification. State v.
Martin , 7th Dist. Columbiana No. 18 CO 0033, 2020-Ohio-3579, appeal n ot allowed, 160 Ohio St.3d 1439, 2020-Ohio-4983, 155 N.E.3d 943. For the follo wing 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 s hows good cause for filing at a later time.” App.R. 26(B). {¶3} Our judgment in this case was filed on June 26, 2020. Appellan t 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 journalizat ion of the appellate judgment, then it must contain “[a] showing of good c ause for untimely filing in the application.” App.R. 26(B)(2)(b). In his application, app ellant 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 claim s he did not have access to the prison law library until early 2021, and even the n his access was limited. {¶5} The Eighth District Court of Appeals has repeatedly rejected th e argument that restricted access to the law library is good cause for lat e filing of an application to
reopen:

[T]he courts have rejected the claim that limited access to leg al materials states good cause for untimely filing. Prison riots, lockdowns, and other library limitations have been rejected as constituting good cau se. 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 Su preme Court of Ohio in State v. Lamar , 102 Ohio St.3d 467 , 2004-Ohio-3 976, 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 st rictly enforced. The Court reaffirmed the principle that lack of effort, imagina tion, and ignorance of the law do not establish good cause for not comply ing with this fundamental aspect of the rule. Untimeliness alone is sufficien t 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 “Tol ling 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, whiche ver is sooner[.]” Id . We filed our judgment in appellant’s direct appeal on June 26, 202 0. 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 ap peal 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.