[Cite as State v. Carter, 2011-Ohio-6256.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio 

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 94967

STATE OF OHIO 

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE 

vs. 

MICHAEL CARTER 

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT 

JUDGMENT: 

APPLICATION DENIED 

Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court 

Case No. CR-528720 

Application for Reopening 
Motion No. 448561 

RELEASE DATE: December 2, 2011 

FOR APPELLANT 

Michael Carter 

Inmate No. 582-874 

Mansfield Correctional Inst. 

P. O. Box 788 

Mansfield, OH 44901 

ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT 

William D. Mason 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

8th Floor Justice Center 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, OH 44113 

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J.: 

{¶ 1} In State v. Carter, Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Case No. CR-528720, the trial court found applicant, Michael Carter, 

guilty of gross sexual imposition and unlawful sexual conduct with a 

minor. This court affirmed that judgment in State v. Carter, Cuyahoga 

App. No. 94967, 2011-Ohio-2658. 

{¶ 2} Carter has filed with the clerk of this court an application for 

reopening. He asserts that he was denied the effective assistance of 

appellate counsel because his appellate counsel did not assign as error 

that trial counsel was ineffective; the state introduced evidence of his 
prior convictions and juvenile court proceedings; and there was 

insufficient evidence and the judgment was contrary to the manifest 

weight of the evidence. We deny the application for reopening. As 

required by App.R. 26(B)(6), the reasons for our denial follow. 

{¶ 3} Initially, we note that App.R. 26(B)(1) provides, in part: “An 

application for reopening shall 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)(2)(b) requires that 

an application for reopening include “a showing of good cause for 

untimely filing if the application is filed more than ninety days after 

journalization of the appellate judgment.” 

{¶ 4} This court’s decision affirming applicant's conviction was 

journalized on June 2, 2011. The application was filed on October 14, 

2011, clearly in excess of the ninety-day limit. 

{¶ 5} Carter avers that he has good cause for the untimely filing of his 

application for reopening because the prison librarian was on vacation 

and then ill from August 14, 2011 through September 9, 2011, as well 

as another seven days through September 25, 2011. Additionally, 

when the librarian was available, the librarian was not able to print 

documents for inmates’ legal research. 

{¶ 6} That is, Carter contends that his limited access to library 
resources establishes good cause for his untimely filing of the 

application for reopening. “[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), 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.” State v. Wynn, Cuyahoga App. 

No. 94967, 2010-Ohio-5469, ¶3. 

{¶ 7} The Supreme Court has upheld judgments denying applications 

for reopening solely on the basis that the application was not timely 

filed and the applicant failed to show “good cause for filing at a later 

time.” App.R. 26(B)(1). See, e.g., 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. Carter’s failure to demonstrate good 

cause is a sufficient basis for denying the application for reopening. 

See, also, State v. Collier (June 11, 1987), Cuyahoga App. No. 51993, 

reopening disallowed 2005-Ohio-5797, Motion No. 370333; State v. 
Garcia (July 8, 1999), Cuyahoga App. No. 74427, reopening disallowed 

2005-Ohio-5796, Motion No. 370916. 

{¶ 8} As a consequence, Carter has not met the standard for reopening. 

 Accordingly, the application for reopening is denied.

 

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, JUDGE 

FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., P.J., and 

KENNETH A. ROCCO, J., CONCUR