tallwtig'; C)H i[:[11je i,(.)1.4hi rln Ar. aeai. from the (1rUri, of Appca1a!'as,. Pdn, m1"m 7eimZ P;t i

Transcription

1 i:p 7`H'.` S'PR! ME 1R7 nf nhtn rln Ar. aeai. from the `?am;..1_tan Coi r ty Ecria? t nf npp a1sy First f17pc=ll<3t;.i 1? 7_ ai: :C i. C i, (1rUri, of Appca1a!'as,. Pdn, m1"m 7eimZ P;t i t7e.p`or"p!bu?i! illpc'f RT I)F,"!IIF'f OTC7:rtC1^! P'= APP"L.L,nr'-i' ;.i(jpm PFivn.1[S 7nHO FInVME:= Pn, F}ox 1"G i nh.-non, Ohio PRO SE FOR RPPELLAN7 j('r:`-"c'h i?ctti?s tj;ifililt!7ci County p,7.'17^f!ni.l'tcf: 7: ti f " oi. "i ) itf,h :> tx'_o4: Ci.i cinne3ti, Ohio 452O2 (i13) ;1 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE tallwtig'; C)H i[:[11je i,(.)1.4hi

2 2"' =!7Li,1?h! I T._ H!- _ P 15 B r. J.. ^^ -.e:ct: ^ c ` -f.r ^ n ^ '._'?.(.. n - n, n "r^^" i,u '', ;r ur'tll Cp qrt qn. ''I:i' InRT :.' F Pi ' PPST i Aj" a i.p 1,! z.. tn AS..,.^, n E?,,.., ar1 Lat^i Nc. r31`. ^ S, ` ^,,_,ic q.-_ ^ ^ ^r. pni-. ^n a?up ^ nr.yen nr7tii F tsu;l "'.._ c t=r., tnrr ^, '.:'tv>!. bli ;t.iils'r i'h1.n ( 7LI.05 i.c?lni-d,'.iit',1: Jildf[7 M.7),1'n].S.\: '[rl ( ^kt P.' - Tnf...,z,n r <,jur'ic<= trn Such '-f*=nrjant, cc N r.x.. Tl'G')AI!);..nl/1n n :lhy?" AIIQ t,it i Hami_7'i( f.i:.lfitv ROu..+: of P1,.t-.aT 1 i-3!n t _ 'I Jq i+pox nn. 11 n't;i n'. n Cl

3 C", :,lv -i';'r`: ii... T F"' e7 ii, b1.::5 n r) ;: ^'nn i,iy,'a'- 7 V Ii'' I ', 4: t'n'_i: 7^ :. ^ t^ 7. r::. 1 i.+=.r'?nr ' L I ; f I G5F1 r: [: : O :_..c _, ;} `-i'_`!,ifl^i ""Ei!lC^

4 :.'. V r Tu ;?r i/-;' c :.ri.ri=! i p op 1E ^. f'lulii. Wa f, 5...l'., `i ^, C B n 1?_-.:) -ql;p'c ^] r^,._ i'i'! 1 "C wh_' h" "I i a _. ; i. C,o;,..' c;n t: Im :i ijli, [7' S1r =:hri (7`.,7V :ti."k i'?'v q two -I!Fi i'.p: tw :.Vu (1 2 ) ViC. _._, T m 1Vr'I C;iil r7f3pl ii"ro `av i.v:i.c'nt:.1'i p;;.7c! I,..' 1 (?.. i l : i' :: p!..'l,,.. oi5 r,n?. ",,4 11 zn, ; 7 i a 1 '3 m r7v ri c>f{ h ^d, ;'4:7i.la7?J.^,., T...,ta o(7. ^ : Sz=1 Ur'i ;:. o 1'1.. ' nrs i14.1c{nt, 'tr),it.fntq L f,:'.i. prl!i`.p:'n"i rf. 1,. 1 ^,IICI i <.., ' ;r''i1u..t.oyf',!,'1n'-_'i.;; i/;.': G..,

5 ._,t. i,( ^ :=11i 'l i. tu =x." I lc i ir.? ^ i. n... < <, i :.. s ii: 1' n,-'i;. 'tn _ ^`_f'i 7 ofri, 9li04 Erl r5f... _ motil,-.., u f5r'=.;^,.rnr_ I nhb' sit hur r mev w h_.. ury&=.-9.._h {1 Jse t ii7vi_s"gv.., nyf, iu :: {'io i ;U R.-.(1 u rit '.ot!>. :i1:lrylt,:'is."3 t:u -, 'r,7rp o "I.. I(3Ub'i 52. r...'_7(i map ( L...'e" :'1lK.!Y'. t i f'.' i V o t. t/ 3W /l i G? 111.i1. I -..,ii r -t;.}l il...o-!l 1}l l _'l P4F' hilly JlL1t1...7d ':]1,pSIY-. =y ' 4 fr! 1 ) Y,

6 liy'.ti r:^iil LI"':: `(I 'ijiiop _'.P.iT` i'li P:1.'._ te nc_ C' i7 fl : ; aab r,nn-?y..r;n hito a,. < t_ r-;ev; wt 1 romrol _ z.n I d p-ovint n -ti,plv ii li.nr, :.nr' a _, 1 tt./i, ` ";;rl >, ^,.5 741,!nhrj = '. O. t,. c t'rl _, tvr. 'f!;1 thr;c.r,?. _...._$'g Itl-,.ncj!'`1'?':`: wi7cl h` v:it i;!-1 i n;} r'i fl i`? i> t I l 10, n!ll1ri: LdLl Il'.(?11 L V L..,. iili':" r 'IiJ U 41? 11 3 i ihe'i l; 1 M= fl.:= 1: i.i t i. [; Cl 8 l sij,.h 0^ i. '!,., i, M-" _;:?U:pi: ':._..,..iict.i,ijn 5?f;l fit o-.'..,..i. 5'1'. t.l f i; D _, o l n,='e' ij i:+r]'':; f:i ). l. ''r "iw!.ih 1-'Pijti:'s'^.",. 120II U ot `s C: J `i n,-. n tih: _ `l (,

7 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO STA'I'E OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs..john HAYNES, Defendant-Annellant. APPEAL NO.C-o20685 TRIAL NO. B-o2o2693 ENZRYDENYING DELAYF.D APPLIC.ATIONFOR REOPENING. This cause is considered upon defendant-appellant John Haynes's App.R. 26(B) application to reopen his appeal and upon the state's opposing memorandum. An appellant must apply to reopen his appeal within go days of the date on which the court of appeals joutnalized its judgment, unless he can show good cause for applying at a later time? 'This court journalized its judgment on Februaiy 20, 2004, and Haynes filed his application on May 18, 2oo9. He thus failed to meet the 9o-day deadline. I-Iaynes contends in his application that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because his appellate counsel failed to submit an assignment of error challenging, under R.C , the imposition of prison terms for both aggravated robbery and robbery, when the offenses were allied offenses of similar import that had been committed neither separately nor with a separate animus as to each. IIe asserts that his filing delay was justified (i) because the Ohio Supreme Court, in the line of cases following its 2oo8 decision in State v. Cabrales,2 had only recently I See App.R. 26(B)(i) and 26(B)(2)(b). 2 ii8 Ohio St.3d 54, 2oo8-Ohio-1625, 886 N.B.2d i8i.

8 OIIIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS "clarified" the allied-offenses issue presented in his proposed assignment of error, and (2) because "[t]he lack of access to transcripts" of the trial proceedings precluded him from discerning the trial court's sentencing error and, in turn, his appellate counsel's incompetence in failing to assign the matter as error. We reject as incongruous Haynes's assertion that his filing delay must be excused because he had no clear authority for his Cabrales-based challenge until the supreme court's 2oo8 decision in that case. If we were to accept this assertion, Haynes could not then prevail upon a claim that his appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to present this challenge in his 2004 appeal. Nor did the lack of a trial transcript constitute good cause for the filing delay, because the proposed sentencing error, and the claimed deficiency in appellate counsel's performance in failing to raise the matter, did not require a transcript to be identified.3 The supreme court requires intermediate appellate courts to strictly enforce the 9o-day deadline for filing an App.R. 26(B) application.4 Because Haynes failed to meet the deadline or to establish good cause for his delay, the court denies his application.5 To the Clerk: Enter upon the Journa^.jof ^e Court on September 23, 2009 per oroer or tne court Presiding Judge (COPIES SENT TO ALL PARTIES.) 3 See State v. Bell (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 32, 34, 652 N.E.2d 191; accord State v. Houston (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 346, 347, 652 N.E.2d 1o18. 4 See State v. Gumm, 103 Ohio St.3d 162, 2004-Ohio-4755, 814 N.E.2d 861; State v. Lamar, 102 Ohio St.3d 467, 2004-Ohio-3967, 812 N.E.2d See App.R. 26(B)(1) and 26(B)(2)(b). 2