[Cite as State v. Pruitt,

.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION Nos. 86707 and 86986

STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

vs.

MICHAEL JARMAL PRUITT DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

JUDGMENT: APPLICATION DENIED

Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Case No. CR-451979 Application for Reopening Motion No. 449412

RELEASE DATE: January 11, 2012 FOR APPELLANT Michael Jarmal Pruitt Inmate No. 474-441 Allen Correctional Inst. P.O. Box 4501 Lima, OH 45802-4501

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT William D. Mason Cuyahoga County Prosecutor By: Mary McGrath Assistant County Prosecutor The Justice Center 1200 Ontario, 8th Floor Cleveland, OH 44113 SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J.:

{¶ 1} In State v. Pruitt, Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No.

CR-451979, applicant, Michael Jarmal Pruitt, pled guilty to and was convicted of attempted

murder and having weapons while under disability. This court affirmed that judgment in State

v. Pruitt, Cuyahoga App. Nos. 86707 and 86986,

. The Supreme Court of Ohio

did not accept Pruitt’s appeal for review. State v. Pruitt,

,

,

.

{¶ 2} Pruitt has filed with the clerk of this court an application for reopening. He

asserts that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel because his appellate

counsel did not assign as error on direct appeal two proposed assignments of error challenging

the propriety of his guilty plea. We deny the application for reopening. As required by App.R.

26(B)(6), the reasons for our denial follow.

{¶ 3} Initially, we note that App.R. 26(B)(1) provides, in part: “An application for

reopening shall be filed * * * within ninety days from journalization of the appellate judgment

unless the applicant shows good cause for filing at a later time.” App.R. 26(B)(2)(b) requires that an application for reopening include “a showing of good cause for untimely filing if the

application is filed more than ninety days after journalization of the appellate judgment.”

{¶ 4} This court’s decision affirming Pruitt’s conviction was journalized on August 21,

2006. The application was filed on November 15, 2011, more than five years after

journalization of this court’s opinion and clearly in excess of the 90-day limit.

{¶ 5} Pruitt contends that his appellate counsel’s statement in a letter that counsel

“could find no issues to raise on appeal” and appellate “counsel’s failure to advise him of the

potential avenue for relief under App.R. 26(B)” constitute good cause for his delayed filing of the

application for reopening. Application, Appendix 3 (emphasis in original) and page 3,

respectively. It is well established, however, that reliance on counsel and asserting that

appellate counsel did not inform the appellant regarding filing an application for reopening under

App.R. 26(B) do not establish good cause for the untimely filing of an application for reopening.

E.g., State v. Bess, Cuyahoga App. No. 91560,

, reopening disallowed,

. Likewise, in this case, Pruitt’s contention that he relied on appellate

counsel’s analysis of his case and that appellate counsel did not inform him of the possibility of

filing an application for reopening do not demonstrate good cause for the delay in filing this

application.

{¶ 6} The Supreme Court has upheld judgments denying applications for reopening

solely on the basis that the application was not timely filed and the applicant failed to show

“good cause for filing at a later time.” App.R. 26(B)(1). E.g., State v. Gumm,

,

,

, and State v. LaMar,

,

,

. Pruitt’s failure to demonstrate good cause is a sufficient

basis for denying the application for reopening. See also State v. Collier (June 11, 1987), Cuyahoga App. No. 51993, reopening disallowed

, Motion No. 370333, and

State v. Garcia (July 8, 1999), Cuyahoga App. No. 74427, reopening disallowed

, Motion No. 370916.

{¶ 7} As a consequence, Pruitt has not met the standard for reopening. Accordingly,

the application for reopening is denied.

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, JUDGE

MELODY J. STEWART, P.J., AND EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR