Opinion
No. 94569
01-07-2015
STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE v. EDWARD TAYLOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
FOR APPELLANT Edward Taylor, pro se Inmate #570-134 Grafton Correctional Institution 2500 South Avon-Belden Road Grafton, Ohio 44044 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Timothy J. McGinty Cuyahoga County Prosecutor By: Jesse W. Canonico Assistant County Prosecutor 9th Floor Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION JUDGMENT: APPLICATION DENIED Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CR-07-502904
Application for Reopening
Motion No. 480696
FOR APPELLANT
Edward Taylor, pro se
Inmate #570-134
Grafton Correctional Institution
2500 South Avon-Belden Road
Grafton, Ohio 44044
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. McGinty
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
By: Jesse W. Canonico
Assistant County Prosecutor
9th Floor Justice Center
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
MELODY J. STEWART, J.:
{¶1} On December 3, 2014, the applicant, Edward Taylor, applied, pursuant to App.R. 26(B), to reopen this court's judgment in State v. Taylor, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 94569, 2010-Ohio-5607, in which we affirmed Taylor's convictions. Taylor had pleaded guilty to aggravated murder and attempted murder. In exchange for the plea, the state, inter alia, dismissed the capital murder specifications, and the court imposed an agreed life sentence with parole eligibility after 30 years. Taylor now asserts that his appellate counsel was ineffective because he did not argue that the trial court, during the guilty plea hearing, failed to advise Taylor of his right to compulsory process. For the following reasons, this court denies the application.
Although this court affirmed the convictions, it did remand the case to remove an erroneous imposition of postrelease control.
{¶2} App.R. 26(B)(1) and (2)(b) require applications claiming ineffective assistance of appellate counsel to be filed within 90 days from journalization of the decision unless the applicant shows good cause for filing at a later time. The December 2014 application was filed more than four years after this court's decision of November 18, 2010. Thus, the application is untimely on its face.
{¶3} Taylor endeavors to show good cause by stating that his appellate attorney never told him that he could move to reopen his appellate case pursuant to App.R. 26(B). However, courts have consistently ruled that lack of knowledge or ignorance of the law do not provide sufficient cause for untimely filing. State v. Klein, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 58389, 1991 Ohio App. LEXIS 1346 (Mar. 28, 1991), reopening disallowed (Mar. 15, 1994), Motion No. 249260, aff'd, 69 Ohio St.3d 1481 (1994). Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
{¶4} Furthermore, reliance on one's attorney also does not provide good cause for a late filing. In State v. Pruitt, 8th Dist Cuyahoga, Nos. 86707 and 86986, 2006-Ohio-4106, reopening disallowed, 2012-Ohio-94, and State v. Alt, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 96289, 2011-Ohio-5393, reopening disallowed, 2012-Ohio-2054, this court ruled that appellate counsel's failure to inform the applicant about App.R. 26(B) did not state good cause for filing an untimely application.
{¶5} Moreover, this excuse does not explain the lapse of approximately four years. In State v. Davis, 86 Ohio St.3d 212, 214, 714 N.E.2d 384 (1999), the Supreme Court of Ohio addressed a similar, long lapse of time in filing the App.R. 26(B) application and ruled: "Even if we were to find good cause of earlier failures to file, any 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.' State v. Fox, 83 Ohio St.3d 514, 516, 1998-Ohio-517, 700 N.E.2d 1253, 1254."
{¶6} Accordingly, this court denies the application. MELODY J. STEWART, JUDGE MARY J. BOYLE, P.J., and
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR