[Cite as State v. Rhodes, 2012-Ohio-471.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

Nos. 95683 and 96337

STATE OF OHIO

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

vs.

VINCENT RHODES

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

JUDGMENT: 

APPLICATION DENIED

Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court 

Case No. CR-509952 

Application for Reopening 

Motion No. 451048 

 

RELEASE DATE: February 6, 2012 
FOR APPELLANT

Vincent Rhodes 

Inmate No. 563-626 

Trumbull Correctional Inst. 

P. O. Box 901 

Leavittsburg, OH 44430 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

William D. Mason 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

By: Kristin Karkutt 

Diane Smilanick 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys 

The Justice Center, 9th Floor 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, OH 44113 
COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, J.: 

{¶ 1} Vincent Rhodes has filed an application for reopening pursuant to App.R. 

26(B). He seeks to reopen the appellate judgment in State v. Rhodes, 8th District Nos. 95683 

and 96337, 2011-Ohio-5153, 2011 WL 4599898, which affirmed his resentencing to a 

seven-year term of incarceration and a $250 fine plus costs. We decline to reopen his 

appeals. 

{¶ 2} App.R. 26(B)(2)(b) requires that Rhodes establish “a showing of 

good cause for untimely filing if the application is filed more than 90 days 

after journalization of the appellate judgment,” which 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 firmly established that: 

We now reject [the applicant’s] claim that those excuses gave him 

good cause to miss the 90-day deadline in App.R. 26(B). The rule 

was amended to include the 90-day deadline more than seven 

months before [the applicant’s] appeal of right was decided by the 

court of appeals in February 1994, so the rule was firmly 

established then, just as it is today. 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. 
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, 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. (Emphasis added.) State v. Gumm, 103 

Ohio St.3d 162, 2004-Ohio-4755, 814 N.E.2d 861, at ¶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, 1995-Ohio-328, 653 N.E.2d 

252; State v. Reddick, 72 Ohio St.3d 88, 1995-Ohio-249, 647 

N.E.2d 784. 
{¶ 3} Rhodes is attempting to reopen the appellate judgment 

journalized on October 6, 2011. The application for reopening was not filed 

until Friday, January 6, 2012, more than 90 days after journalization of the 

appellate judgment in Rhodes. Rhodes has failed to raise or argue “good 

cause” for the untimely filing of his application for reopening. State v. Klein, 

8th Dist. No. 58389, 1991 WL 41746 (Apr. 8, 1991), reopening disallowed 

(Mar. 15, 1994), Motion No. 49260, aff’d, 69 Ohio St.3d 1481, 634 N.E.2d 

1027; State v. Trammell, 8th Dist. No. 67834, 1995 WL 415171 (July 24, 

1995), reopening disallowed (Apr. 22, 1996), Motion No. 70493; State v. Travis

8th Dist. No. 56825, 1990 WL 40573 (Apr. 5, 1990), reopening disallowed 

(Nov. 2, 1994), Motion No. 51073, aff’d, 72 Ohio St.3d 317, 649 N.E.2d 1226 

(1995). See also State v. Gaston, 8th Dist. No. 79626, 2007 WL 117505 (Jan. 

1, 2007) reopening disallowed (Jan. 17, 2007), Motion No. 391555; State v. 

Torres, 8th Dist. No. 86530, 2006-Ohio-3696, 2006 WL 2023578, reopening 

disallowed 2007-Ohio-9, Motion No. 390254. 

{¶ 4} Accordingly, the application for reopening is denied. 

COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, JUDGE 

PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, A.J., and 

MARY J. BOYLE, J., CONCUR