Opinion
No. 105197
04-04-2018
STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE v. LAWRENCE BLACK DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
FOR APPELLANT Lawrence Black, pro se Inmate No. 691752 Trumbull Correctional Institution P.O. Box 901 Leavittsburg, Ohio 44430 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Michael C. O'Malley Cuyahoga County Prosecutor By: Ryan J. Bokoch Frank Romeo Zeleznikar Assistant County Prosecutor Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION JUDGMENT: APPLICATION DENIED Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CR-15-600941-B
Application for Reopening
Motion No. 514394
FOR APPELLANT
Lawrence Black, pro se
Inmate No. 691752
Trumbull Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 901
Leavittsburg, Ohio 44430
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Michael C. O'Malley
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
By: Ryan J. Bokoch
Frank Romeo Zeleznikar
Assistant County Prosecutor
Justice Center
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113 FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J.:
{¶1} On January 30, 2018, the applicant, Lawrence Black, pursuant to App.R. 26(B), applied to reopen this court's judgment in State v. Black, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 105197, 2017-Ohio-8063, in which this court affirmed Black's convictions for participating in a criminal gang, felonious assault, two counts of improperly handling a firearm in a motor vehicle, improperly discharging a firearm into a habitation, improperly discharging a firearm on or near prohibited premises, and having weapons while under disability, but reversed the trial court's imposition of consecutive sentences on the three-year firearm specifications underlying one of the counts of improperly handling a firearm in a motor vehicle and the count for discharging a firearm into a habitation, and remanded for resentencing. Black now submits that his appellate counsel was ineffective for not arguing that the trial court erred by sentencing him to consecutive terms for the three-year firearm specification and the five-year firearm specification for discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle that were included with the charge for firing into a habitation. The state of Ohio filed its brief in opposition on February 6, 2018. For the following reasons, this court denies the application.
However, R.C. 2929.14(C)(1)(a) requires that such firearm specifications be served consecutively. State v. Hooks, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 88713, 2007-Ohio-5944. --------
{¶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. Black filed his application 117 days after this court's October 5, 2017 decision. Thus, the application is untimely on its face. Black tries to show good cause by arguing that he only learned of legal procedures once he arrived in prison. However, the Supreme Court of Ohio has ruled that an applicant
cannot rely on his own alleged lack of legal training to excuse his failure to comply with the deadline. 'Lack of effort or imagination, and ignorance of the law * * * do not automatically establish good cause for failure to seek timely relief' under App.R. 26(B). State v. Reddick, 72 Ohio St.3d 88, 91, 1995-Ohio-249, 647 N.E.2d 784. The 90-day requirement in the rule is 'applicable to all appellants,' State v. Winstead, 74 Ohio St.3d 277, 278, 1996-Ohio-52, 658 N.E.2d 722, and [the applicant] offers no sound reasons why he - unlike so many other Ohio criminal defendants - could not comply with that fundamental aspect of the rule.State v. Gumm, 103 Ohio St.3d 162, 2004-Ohio-4755, 814 N.E.2d 861, ¶ 10. The court finds the Supreme Court's language to be completely applicable in the present case.
{¶3} Accordingly, this court denies the application. /s/_________
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., JUDGE ANITA LASTER MAYS, P.J., and
LARRY A. JONES, SR., J., CONCUR