Opinion
No. 96032
06-18-2014
STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE v. WILLIE HURT DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
FOR APPELLANT Willie Hurt Inmate #563-360 Lorain Correctional Institution ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Willliam D. Mason Cuyahoga County Prosecutor By: Diane Smilanick Assistant County Prosecutor
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT:
APPLICATION DENIED
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CR-514257
Application for Reopening
Motion No. 474601
FOR APPELLANT
Willie Hurt
Inmate #563-360
Lorain Correctional Institution
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Willliam D. Mason
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
By: Diane Smilanick
Assistant County Prosecutor
KENNETH A. ROCCO, J.:
{¶1} On May 7, 2014, the applicant, Willie Hurt, 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 judgment in State v. Hurt, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 96032, Entry Nos. 439452 and 439502 (Nov. 22, 2010), in which this court denied Hurt's pro se November 17, 2010 motion for leave to file notice of appeal out of rule. Hurt alleges that his appellate counsel should have argued the invalidity of the indictment and ineffective assistance of trial counsel. For the following reasons, this court denies the application.
In State v. Hurt, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-514257, Hurt pleaded guilty to one count each of rape and gross sexual imposition. On March 19, 2009, the trial court sentenced him to 18 years imprisonment.
{¶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. Hurt filed the instant application approximately three-and-a-half years after this court's denial of this motion for a delayed appeal. Thus, it is untimely on its face, and Hurt proffers no good cause for his untimely filing.
{¶3} Moreover, in State v. Hurt, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 96032, 2012-Ohio-4268, Hurt previously filed an App.R. 26(B) application to reopen. This court denied the application as untimely. It also ruled that because Hurt had represented himself in filing the motion for delayed appeal, he could not maintain a claim for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Again, Hurt, pro se, has filed an untimely application, which is stillborn. Additionally, the Supreme Court of Ohio has ruled that App.R. 26(B) does not permit successive applications. State v. Slagle, 97 Ohio St.3d 332, 2002-Ohio-6612, 779 N.E.2d 1041.
{¶4} Accordingly, this court denies the application. __________
KENNETH A. ROCCO, JUDGE
PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, P.J., and
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., CONCUR