Opinion ID: 1458205
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Untimely Application to Reopen

Text: In his fifth ground for habeas relief, Scuba argued that the appellate court failed to adjudicate petitioner[']s application for reopening raising a viable issue petitioner was denied choice of counsel prior to trial depriving him of his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights. In his Application to Reopen, Scuba for the first time asserted a deprivation of his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights on the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel with regard to choice of counsel. The Court again utilizes the Maupin factors to determine whether procedural default is a bar to Scuba's claims. 785 F.2d at 138. First, Ohio Rule of Appellate Procedure 26(B), which governs the reopening of a direct appeal, contains a filing deadline that constitutes a state procedural rule that is applicable to the petitioner's claim. Id. Scuba failed to comply with that rule by filing his application over two years past the deadline without good cause. Id. Regarding the second Maupin factor, the state court of appeals, upon finding that Scuba failed to show good cause for his delay, enforced the rule by dismissing Scuba's application as untimely. Id. Addressing the third Maupin factor, Scuba argues that the state procedural bar is not an adequate and independent state ground because Ohio does not apply the rule uniformly. [O]nly a `firmly established and regularly followed state practice' may be interposed by a State to prevent subsequent review by [the federal courts] of a federal constitutional claim. Ford v. Georgia, 498 U.S. 411, 423-24, 111 S.Ct. 850, 112 L.Ed.2d 935 (1991) (quoting James v. Kentucky, 466 U.S. 341, 348-51, 104 S.Ct. 1830, 80 L.Ed.2d 346 (1984)). Scuba string-cites eleven cases as evidence for his proposition that the timeliness/good cause rule is not firmly established and regularly followed. However, closer examination of the cases reveal that they are allwithout fail capital cases in which the Supreme Court of Ohio exercised its jurisdiction over the case as an appeal of right, in compliance with Ohio Supreme Court Rule II(A)(1). [3] These cases are irrelevant, and Scuba ignores this Court's precedent regarding Rule 26(B) in non-capital cases like his: Our review of Ohio law leads us to conclude that there was sufficient guidance as to what would not constitute good cause at the time the rule was applied in this case. We do not dwell on the decisions issued shortly after the Murnahan decision, as the Ohio courts have had several years since then to consider the good cause requirement. Monzo v. Edwards, 281 F.3d 568, 578 (6th Cir.2002) (citations omitted). Monzo was decided in February of 2002, and Scuba filed his Application to Reopen in July of that same year. Because the first three Maupin factors favor a finding of procedural default, Scuba bears the burden of demonstrating that there was `cause' for him to not follow the procedural rule and that he was actually prejudiced by the alleged constitutional error. Maupin, 785 F.2d at 138. As cause for failing to file in time, Scuba argued that all three of his prior counsel were ineffective. Considering this argument, the court of appeals found: Even if we were to hold these attorneys' collective failure to file an application for reopening constitutes good cause, `such good cause has long since evaporated. Good cause can excuse the lack of a filing only while it exists, not for an indefinite period.' The decision in Scuba's initial appeal was released in November 1999. He has been represented by three different attorneys since this decision was released. Scuba does not explain why he has waited over two and one-half years to file an application for reopening. In his current appeal, Scuba also fails to show good cause for his long delay in filing. Even if Scuba had been more diligent in filing his application closer to the ninety-day deadline, Scuba's counsel could not have been ineffective for failing to file an application on his behalf. Ohio Appellate Rule 26(B) filings are collateral proceedings to which a defendant has no Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel. Lopez v. Wilson, 426 F.3d 339, 352 (6th Cir.2005); see also Wainwright v. Torna, 455 U.S. 586, 587-88, 102 S.Ct. 1300, 71 L.Ed.2d 475 (1982) (Since respondent had no constitutional right to counsel, he could not be deprived of the effective assistance of counsel by his retained counsel's failure to file the application timely.); Jackson v. Johnson, 217 F.3d 360, 364 (5th Cir.2000) (no constitutional right to counsel for purposes of filing a rehearing motion; counsel on direct appeal has no duty to inform a client of the option to file the same pro se). Accordingly, because Scuba cannot satisfy the cause and prejudice requirement of Maupin, he has procedurally defaulted the claims he first raised in his Application to Reopen, including his Fifth Ground for relief in his current petition.