Court Opinion

ID: 9390269
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-27 14:08:08.979707+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:32.681789
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Carano, 2023-Ohio-1363.]

                               COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                             EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE OF OHIO,                                     :

                 Plaintiff-Appellee,               :
                                                            No. 111248
                 v.                                :

SHANNON CARANO,                                    :

                 Defendant-Appellant.              :

                               JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

                 JUDGMENT: APPLICATION DENIED
                 RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: April 24, 2023

                           Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
                                 Case No. CR-21-658104-A
                                 Application for Reopening
                                     Motion No. 561640

                                             Appearances:

                 Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
                 Attorney, and Daniel T. Van, Assistant Prosecuting
                 Attorney, for appellee.

                 Shannon Carano, pro se.

FRANK DANIEL CELEBREZZE, III, P.J.:

                Shannon Carano has filed an application for reopening pursuant to

App.R. 26(B). Carano is attempting to reopen the appellate judgment rendered in

State v. Carano, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 111248, 2022-Ohio-2872, that affirmed her
plea of guilty to the offenses of five counts of pandering sexually oriented matter

involving a minor (R.C. 2907.322(A)(2)), six counts of pandering sexually oriented

matter involving a minor (R.C. 2907.322(A)(5)), and one count of illegal use of

minor in nudity-oriented material or performance (R.C. 2907.323(A)(3)), and the

sentences imposed in State v. Carano, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-21-658104-A. We

decline to reopen Carano’s appeal.

 I. Untimely Filed Application for Reopening – Good Cause Required

            App.R. 26(B)(2)(b) requires that Carano establish “a showing of good

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

journalization of the appellate judgment” that 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 established that

      [w]e now reject [the applicant’s] claims that those excuses gave good
      cause to miss the 90-day deadline in App.R. 26(B). * * * 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 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, ¶ 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, 653 N.E.2d 252 (1995); State v.

Reddick, 72 Ohio St.3d 88, 647 N.E.2d 784 (1995).

            Herein, Carano is attempting to reopen the appellate judgment

journalized on August 18, 2022. The application for reopening was not filed until

January 30, 2023, more than 90 days after journalization of the appellate judgment

in Carano, supra. Carano claims that 1) she did not timely receive notice from

appellate counsel with regard to the ability to file an App.R. 26(B) application for

reopening; and 2) detrimental reliance upon the legal advice provided by appellate

counsel. Carano has failed to demonstrate any viable showing of good cause for the

untimely filing of her application for reopening.

            The arguments raised by Carano, in support of her good-cause

argument, do not establish a valid basis for the untimely filing of her App.R. 26(B)

application for reopening. In State v. Lamar, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 49551, 1985

Ohio App. LEXIS 7284 (Oct. 3, 1985), reopening disallowed (Nov. 15, 1995), Motion

No. 63398, this court held that lack of communication with appellate counsel did

not show good cause. See also State v. Jarrells, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99329,

2014-Ohio-4564. Similarly, in State v. White, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 57944, 1991

Ohio App. LEXIS 357 (Jan. 31, 1991), reopening disallowed (Oct. 19, 1994), Motion

No. 49174, and State v. Allen, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 65806, 1994 Ohio App. LEXIS

4956 (Nov. 3, 1994), reopening disallowed (July 8, 1996), Motion No. 67054, this
court rejected reliance on counsel as showing good cause. Specifically, in State v.

Fortson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 72229, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 6104 (Dec. 17, 1998),

reopening disallowed (Jan. 23, 2001), Motion No. 18195, 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS

245, this court ruled that an attorney’s delay in notification of an appellate decision

does not establish good cause. See also State v. Congress, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.

102867, 2018-Ohio-4521; State v. Moss, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 62318 and 62322,

1993 Ohio App. LEXIS 2491 (May 13, 1993), reopening disallowed (Jan. 16, 1997),

Motion No. 75838; State v. McClain, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 67785, 1995 Ohio App.

LEXIS 3207 (Aug. 3, 1995), reopening disallowed (Apr. 15, 1997), Motion No. 76811;

and State v. Russell, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 69311, 1996 Ohio App. LEXIS 1879

(May 9, 1996), reopening disallowed (June 16, 1997), Motion No. 82351, 1997 Ohio

App. LEXIS 2663.

             In addition, this court has consistently held that lack of knowledge or

ignorance of the law does not provide sufficient cause for the untimely filing of an

application for reopening. State v. Klein, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 58389, 1991 Ohio

App. LEXIS 1346 (Apr. 8, 1991), reopening disallowed (Mar. 15, 1994), Motion No.

49260, affirmed, 69 Ohio St.3d 1481, 634 N.E.2d 1027 (1994); State v. Trammell,

8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 67834, 1995 Ohio App. LEXIS 2962 (July 24, 1995),

reopening disallowed (Apr. 22, 1996), Motion No. 70493; State v. Cummings, 8th

Dist. Cuyahoga No. 69966, 1996 Ohio App. LEXIS 4565 (Oct. 17, 1996), reopening

disallowed (Mar. 26, 1998), Motion No. 92134; and State v. Young, 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga Nos. 66768 and 66769, 1994 Ohio App. LEXIS 4634 (Oct. 13, 1994),

reopening disallowed (Dec. 5, 1995), Motion No. 66164.

          II. Effect of Plea of Guilty on App.R. 26(B) Application

             In State v. Carano, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-21-658104-A, Carano

entered pleas of guilty to the offenses of pandering sexually oriented matter

involving a minor and illegal use of minor in nudity-oriented material or

performance. A plea of guilty waives a defendant’s right to challenge his or her

conviction on all potential issues except for jurisdictional issues and the claim that

ineffective assistance of counsel caused the guilty plea to be less than knowing,

intelligent, and voluntary. Montpelier v. Greeno, 25 Ohio St.3d 170, 495 N.E.2d 581

(1986); State v. Vihtelic, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 105381, 2017-Ohio-5818; State v.

Szidik, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 95644, 2011-Ohio-4093; State v. Salter, 8th Dist.

Cuyahoga No. 82488, 2003-Ohio-5652; and State v. May, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.

97354, 2012-Ohio-2766, reopening disallowed, 2012-Ohio-5504.

            Our independent review of the plea transcript clearly demonstrates that

the trial court meticulously complied with the mandates of Crim.R. 11 and that

Carano entered a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary plea of guilty to the charged

offenses. Because Carano’s plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made,

and the claimed errors raised by Carano are not based upon any jurisdictional

defects, the raised proposed assignments of error are waived. By entering a plea of

guilty, Carano waived all appealable errors that might have occurred at trial unless

the errors prevented Carano from entering a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary
guilty plea. State v. Kelley, 57 Ohio St.3d 127, 566 N.E.2d 658 (1991); State v.

Barnett, 73 Ohio App.3d 244, 596 N.E.2d 1101 (2d Dist.1991).

            Accordingly, we find that Carano has failed to establish good cause for

the untimely filing of her application for reopening. In addition, Carano waived her

proposed assignments of error based upon the fact that her pleas of guilty to the

charged offenses were knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.

            Application denied.

________________________________________
FRANK DANIEL CELEBREZZE, III, PRESIDING JUDGE

EMANUELLA D. GROVES, J., and
MICHAEL JOHN RYAN, J., CONCUR