Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga
County Court of Common Pleas Case Nos. CR-12-563308-A,
CR-12-568907-A, CR-13-571411-A, and CR-13-571412-A
Application for Reopening Motion No. 512427
APPELLANT Deaaron Harris, pro se
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Michael C. O'Malley Cuyahoga
County Prosecutor By: Maxwell Martin Assistant County
Prosecutor Justice Center
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
D CELEBREZZE, JR, PRESIDING JUDGE
Applicant, Deaaron Harris, seeks to reopen his appeal,
claiming that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing
to argue that the trial court's findings regarding
consecutive sentences were incorrect. After a thorough review
of the record and law, this court declines to reopen his
Factual and Procedural History
On November 27, 2017, Harris, pursuant to App.R. 26(B) and
State v. Murnahan, 63 Ohio St.3d 60, 584 N.E.2d 1204
(1992), applied to reopen this court's March 13, 2014
judgment in State v. Harris, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.
99919, 2014-Ohio-925. There, Harris's convictions and
sentences for burglary in four cases were affirmed, but one
case, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-12-568907-A, was remanded to the
trial court for correction of the journal entry of sentence
nunc pro tunc to reflect the proper period of postrelease
control that was imposed during the sentencing
Law and Analysis
App.R. 26(B)(1) and (B)(2)(b) require applications claiming
ineffective assistance of appellate counsel to be filed
within 90 days from journalization of the appellate decision
unless the applicant shows good cause for filing at a later
time. The 90-day deadline for filing an application for
reopening must be strictly enforced. State v. LaMar,
102 Ohio St.3d 467, 2004-Ohio-3976, 812 N.E.2d 970; State
v. Gumm, 103 Ohio St.3d 162, 2004-Ohio-4755, 814 N.E.2d
861. Harris filed his application on November 27, 2017 -
almost four years after this court issued its decision in the
underlying case. Thus, it is untimely on its face.
In an effort to establish good cause, Harris argues that he
was not served with a copy of this court's decision or
the nunc pro tunc entry in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-12-568907-A
correcting the journal entry of sentence. He further asserts
that at some point, he requested and received copies of each.
He does not indicate when he received those, or elaborate on
the reasons for his delay.
An applicant's alleged delayed notice of the appellate
decision does not constitute good cause for an untimely
application. State v. Alt, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.
96289, 2012-Ohio-2054, ¶ 8 citing State v.
Mitchell, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 88977, 2009-Ohio-1874
("The failure of appellate counsel to notify a
defendant-appellant of the judgment of the court of appeals
is not good cause for the untimely filing of an application
for reopening."); see also State v. Henderson,
8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 95655, 2013-Ohio-2524, ¶ 2.
An untimely application must set forth good cause for
tardiness. Harris has failed to show good cause. Because the
lack of good cause precludes our consideration of the
untimely application, the substantive merits of the
application cannot be addressed. State ex rel. Wood v.
McClelland, 140 Ohio St.3d 331, 2014-Ohio-3969, 18
N.E.3d 423, ¶ 13.