Court Opinion

ID: 9964275
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-29 16:09:12.681668+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:16.464755
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Adams, 2024-Ohio-1630.]

             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                             SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                 MAHONING COUNTY

                                            STATE OF OHIO,

                                            Plaintiff-Appellee,

                                                     v.

                                             DAVID ADAMS,

                                       Defendant-Appellant.

                        OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
                                        Case No. 13 MA 0130

                                            Application to Reopen

                                         BEFORE:
                   Mark A. Hanni, Cheryl L. Waite, Katelyn Dickey, Judges.

                                                JUDGMENT:
                                                  Denied.

 Atty. Gina DeGenova, Mahoning County Prosecutor, and Atty. Edward A. Czopur,
 Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Mahoning County Prosecutor's Office, for Plaintiff-
 Appellee and

 Atty. Erin M. Branham and Atty. Megan M. Patituce, Patituce & Associates, LLC, for
 Defendant-Appellant.

                                            Dated: April 26, 2024
                                                                                         –2–

 PER CURIAM.

        {¶1}   Appellant David Adams has filed an application to reopen his appeal
pursuant to App.R. 26(B). He raises three assignments of error that he asserts his
appellate counsel should have raised on his behalf. For the following reasons, we deny
Appellant’s application as untimely filed without good cause.

                              Factual and Procedural History

        {¶2}   Appellant was indicted in November 2009 on eight counts of rape, first-
degree felonies in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(2)(B). Appellant initially entered an Alford
plea to the charges, but then filed a motion to vacate his plea, which the trial court denied.
On appeal, we reversed the trial court’s judgment, vacated Appellant’s plea, and
remanded the case. State v. Adams, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 12 MA 9, 2012-Ohio-5979.
        {¶3}   The matter proceeded to a jury trial and the jury convicted Appellant on all
counts. The court sentenced Appellant to a total of 80 years in prison.
        {¶4}   On December 31, 2014, we affirmed Appellant's convictions and sentence
in State v. Adams, 2014-Ohio-5854, 26 N.E.3d 1283 (7th Dist.). Appellant appealed to
the Ohio Supreme Court, but that Court declined to accept his appeal for review. State
v. Adams, 143 Ohio St.3d 1405, 2015-Ohio-2747, 34 N.E.3d 133 (Table).
        {¶5}   Appellant filed the instant App.R. 26(B) application to reopen on January 5,
2024.

                                       Untimely Filing

        {¶6}   App.R. 26(B)(1) provides that:

        A defendant in a criminal case may apply for reopening of the appeal from
        the judgment of conviction and sentence, based on a claim of ineffective
        assistance of appellate counsel. An application for reopening shall be filed
        in the court of appeals where the appeal was decided within ninety days
        from journalization of the appellate judgment unless the applicant shows
        good cause for filing at a later time.

Case No. 13 MA 0130
                                                                                         –3–

Appellant acknowledges that his application is untimely. The application was due 90 days
from our December 31, 2014 judgment. The instant application was filed on January 5,
2024.
        {¶7}   However, Appellant asserts that good cause exists for filing his application
over 9 years late. He submits that prior counsel failed to advise him of appealable issues,
told him he was very busy, and counsel told Appellant that he thought he knew the victim
and her family. However, none of these statements explain why he did not file the
application for 9 years.
        {¶8}   Appellant further asserts that prior counsel did not notify him of the deadline
to file the application to reopen. Courts have held that reliance on one’s attorney to advise
him of the 90-day deadline does not constitute good cause. State v. Taylor, 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 94569, 2015-Ohio-14, ¶ 4. We also held in State v. Cutlip, 7th Dist.
Belmont No. 21 BE 0032, 2023-Ohio-914, ¶ 7, that:

        [c]lerical errors and ignorance of the law do not generally establish good
        cause for the failure to satisfy the 90-day rule, and ‘[u]ntimeliness alone is
        sufficient to dismiss the application.’ State v. Martin, 7th Dist. Columbiana
        No. 18 CO 0033, 2021-Ohio-4290, ¶ 5, citing State v. Lamar, 102 Ohio St.3d
        467, 2004-Ohio-3976, 812 N.E.2d 970. Reliance on a lack of legal training
        or knowledge does not excuse one's failure to comply with the deadline.
        State v. Gumm, 103 Ohio St.3d 162, 2004-Ohio-4755, 814 N.E.2d 861, ¶ 7-
        10.

        {¶9}   Moreover, the Ohio Supreme Court has held that good cause that initially
exists for an untimely App.R. 26(B) application may evaporate over a lengthy delay. State
v. Fox, 83 Ohio St.3d 514, 516, 1998-Ohio-517 (“Good cause can excuse the lack of a
filing only while it exists, not for an indefinite period.”)
        {¶10} Accordingly, good cause is lacking from Appellant’s nearly 9-year delay in
filing his application.

Case No. 13 MA 0130
                                                                                   –4–

       {¶11} For these reasons, we find that Appellant’s App.R. 26(B) application for
reopening is denied as untimely and Appellant has failed to establish good cause for his
9-year delay in filing.

 JUDGE MARK A. HANNI

 JUDGE CHERYL L. WAITE

 JUDGE KATELYN DICKEY

                                NOTICE TO COUNSEL

 This document constitutes a final judgment entry.

Case No. 13 MA 0130