Opinion
No. 99993
05-15-2015
STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE v. CHRISTOPHER E. LENHART DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT John T. Martin 310 Lakeside Avenue Suite 200 Cleveland, OH 44113 Christopher Lenhart #623-254 Mansfield Correctional Institution Mansfield, OH 44901 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Timothy J. McGinty Cuyahoga County Prosecutor By: Amy Venesile Assistant County Prosecutor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, OH 44113
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION JUDGMENT: APPLICATION DENIED Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case Nos. CR-12-558148-A, CR-12-558615-A and CR-12-559178-A
Application for Reopening Motion No. 482886
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
John T. Martin
310 Lakeside Avenue
Suite 200
Cleveland, OH 44113
Christopher Lenhart
#623-254
Mansfield Correctional Institution
Mansfield, OH 44901
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. McGinty
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
By: Amy Venesile
Assistant County Prosecutor
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, OH 44113
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J.:
{¶1} On February 18, 2015, the applicant, Christopher Lenhart, pursuant to App.R. 26(B), applied to reopen this court's judgment in State v. Lenhart, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99993, 2014-Ohio-2260, in which this court affirmed Lenhart's convictions and sentences for burglary, kidnapping, failure to notify change of address, and intimidation. Lenhart argues that his appellate counsel was ineffective for not arguing that "the failure to notify" charge was a lower degree felony that carried a maximum prison sentence of 36 months and for citing the wrong authority in the appellate argument. For the following reasons, this court denies the application to reopen.
During trial, Lenhart pleaded guilty to those four offenses, and the trial court imposed an agreed upon sentence of five years. Lenhart faced charges in three different cases, State v. Lenhart, Cuyahoga C.P. Nos. CR-12-558148-A, CR-12-558615-A, and CR-12-559178-A. In Case No. CR-12-558615-A, the trial court imposed a three- year sentence for "the failure to notify the change of address" charge and ran that concurrent to the sentences in the other cases.
{¶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 February 2015 application was filed approximately nine months after this court's decision. Thus, it is untimely on its face. In an effort to establish good cause, Lenhart argues that his ignorance of the law prevented him from filing this application timely. The courts have consistently ruled that lack of knowledge or ignorance of the law does 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, 634 N.E.2d 1027 (1994), and State v. Barnes, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 94025, 2010-Ohio-4674, reopening disallowed, 2011-Ohio-1916.
{¶3} Accordingly, this court denies the application to reopen. /s/_________
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, JUDGE
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., A.J., and
LARRY A. JONES, SR., J., CONCUR