Court Opinion

ID: 9931365
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-08 20:07:46.433912+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:17:30.763206
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Lenhart, 2024-Ohio-462.]

                               COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                              EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                 COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE OF OHIO,                                     :

                 Plaintiff-Appellee,               :
                                                            No. 74332
                 v.                                :

CHRISTOPHER LENHART,                               :

                 Defendant-Appellant.              :

                                JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

                 JUDGMENT: APPLICATION DENIED
                 RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: February 6, 2024

                           Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
                                 Case No. CR-97-356977-ZA
                                 Application for Reopening
                                     Motion No. 570950

                                             Appearances:

                 Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
                 Attorney, and Anthony T. Miranda, Assistant Prosecutor,
                 for appellee.

                 Christopher Lenhart, pro se.

LISA B. FORBES, J.:

                   Applicant, Christopher Lenhart, for the second time seeks to reopen

his appeal in State v. Lenhart, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 74332, 1999 Ohio App.LEXIS

3379 (July 22, 1999) (“Lenhart I”). Because successive applications to reopen an
appeal are not allowed by App.R. 26(B) and the application is untimely without a

showing of good cause, the application for reopening is denied.

I.   Procedural History

               In 1998, Lenhart was convicted of rape and felonious assault, for

which he received an aggregate seven-year prison sentence. He appealed his

convictions to this court arguing that the trial court erred in allowing the state to

impeach its own witness, Lenhart’s rape conviction was based on insufficient

evidence and was against the manifest weight of the evidence, the trial court erred

in limiting cross-examination of the victim, and defense counsel fell below the

standard for constitutionally ineffective assistance. Lenhart I at 1. On July 22, 1999,

this court issued an opinion that overruled Lenhart’s assigned errors and affirmed

his convictions. Id. at 31. Lenhart has served his prison sentence and period of

postrelease control.

               Throughout the years, Lenhart has attempted to vacate portions of his

sentence and has sought additional DNA testing. These collateral proceedings have

little bearing on the present application so they will not be restated here.1 The

relevant procedural history is that on January 17, 2019, Lenhart filed an application

to reopen Lenhart I in State v. Lenhart, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 74332, 2019-Ohio-

1113 (“Lenhart II”). On March 27, 2019, this court denied the application for

      1 A more thorough review of the procedural history of Lenhart’s various motions

and appeals can be found in State v. Lenhart, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 110226, 2022-Ohio-
125.
reopening based on Lenhart’s failure to show good cause for the substantial delay in

filing. Id. at ¶ 7.

                Now, almost four years after his initial application for reopening,

Lenhart again seeks to reopen the appeal from his 1998 criminal convictions. On

January 3, 2024, he filed the present successive application where he asserted the

following proposed assignments of error:

       1. Appellate counsel never inquired into the fact that trial counsel
       allowed Mr. Lenhart to take the stand to testify on his behalf without
       first hiring an expert to investigate and test said biological material in
       the custody of the state of Ohio.

       The fact that trial counsel failed to inquire into the reliability of the
       biological material applicant believes falls under the case of United
       States v. Cronic, 466 US 648, 104 S.Ct. 2039, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984).
       Citing Strickland, Supra.

       2. Appellate counsel never inquired into the fact that the trial court
       never conducted a Daubert hearing to determine if in fact Ms. Tina
       Wolfe was testifying within the [sic] EVID.R.702.

       Ms. Wolfe was testifying to evidence that was not tested for its
       reliability and was believed to be true by the jury which in fact denied
       applicant a fair trial.

       There was testimony by a nurse that she and detective Coleman opened
       and started to conduct some testing and procedure but there was no
       report of her as a[n] expert to in fact conduct the procedures she was
       asked to do by Det. Coleman.

       3. Appellate counsel never inquired into the fact that the statement of
       the victim (C.S.) deferred [sic] later from the initial statement. She first
       stated there was two (2) attackers and later recanted after applicant
       believes that the biological material was altered and or contaminated
       by the nurse and Det. Coleman. The nurse admitted in trial that she was
       doing what Det. Coleman asked of her.

       4. Appellate counsel failed to inquire into the fact that the jury never
       decided what if any subsection of R.C.2907.02 as it was left blank.
      The trial court stated that applicant knows what subsection he’s guilty
      of which is structural error as the jury must decide guilt. See
      Crim.R.52(B).

              Lenhart’s application acknowledged untimely filing, but only stated

that he was late in filing because “he was never put on notice that the biological

material was missing that was disclosed upon request [sic] the state of Ohio.”

              On January 4, 2024, the state filed a brief in opposition to Lenhart’s

second application for reopening. There, it argued that successive applications for

reopening were prohibited, the application was untimely without a showing of good

cause, and the application lacked a sworn statement attesting to the basis for the

claimed ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.

II. Law and Analysis

              App.R. 26(B) provides a means to raise claims of ineffective

assistance of appellate counsel in criminal cases. Under this rule, an applicant can

argue a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, which is analyzed using

the same standard for ineffective assistance of trial counsel announced in Strickland

v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). State v. Leyh,

166 Ohio St.3d 365, 2022-Ohio-292, 185 N.E.3d 1075, ¶ 17. The application shall be

granted if “there is a genuine issue as to whether the applicant was deprived of the

effective assistance of counsel on appeal.” App.R. 26(B)(5).

              However, “there is no right to file successive applications for

reopening” under App.R. 26(B). State v. Williams, 99 Ohio St.3d 179, 2003-Ohio-

3079, 790 N.E.2d 299, ¶ 12. “Neither App.R. 26(B) nor State v. Murnahan, 63 Ohio
St.3d 60, 584 N.E.2d 1204 (1992), provides a criminal defendant the right to file

second or successive applications for reopening.” Id. at ¶ 10. Accord State v.

Meadows, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 111950, 2023-Ohio-3469, ¶ 4. Lenhart previously

filed an application for reopening in 2019, which was denied in Lenhart II. Lenhart

does not address under what authority this court may grant a successive application,

and the above authority states that successive applications are not permitted.

Accordingly, this successive application must be denied.

               Further, an application for reopening must be filed within 90 days of

the journalization of the appellate decision in the appeal that is the subject of

reopening.   App.R. 26(B)(1).     The failure to file within 90 days requires the

application to establish good cause to excuse the delay in filing. App.R. 26(B)(2)(b).

Where arguments going to good cause exist, “[g]ood cause can excuse the lack of a

filing only while it exists, not for an indefinite period.” State v. Fox, 83 Ohio St.3d

514, 516, 700 N.E.2d 1253 (1998), citing State v. Hill, 78 Ohio St.3d 174, 677 N.E.2d

337 (1997), and State v. Carter, 70 Ohio St.3d 642, 640 N.E.2d 811 (1994).

               The present application is untimely without a showing of good cause

to excuse the over 24-year delay in filing. In support of good cause, Lenhart argues

that “he was never put on notice that the biological material was missing that was

disclosed upon request [sic] the state of Ohio.” He does not further elaborate. In

any event, none of the proposed assignments of error relate to missing or untested

biological materials. The proposed assignments of error deal with trial issues that

were known or reasonably could have been known at the time of the direct appeal
or within 90 days the appellate decision. Lenhart’s stated reason for the delayed

filing does not provide a basis for this court to excuse a 24-year delay. Therefore,

Lenhart has not set forth good cause to establish why he was prevented from timely

filing an application for reopening within 90 days. Therefore, the application must

be denied.

              Application denied.

LISA B. FORBES, JUDGE

EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, P.J., and
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR