[Cite as State v. Banks,

.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 97084

STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

vs.

JUAN BANKS DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

JUDGMENT: APPLICATION DENIED

Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Case No. CR-546456 Application for Reopening Motion No. 458344

RELEASE DATE: January 23, 2013

-i- FOR APPELLANT

Juan Banks, pro se Inmate No. 603-214 Southern Ohio Correctional Facility P.O. Box 45699 Lucasville, Ohio 45699

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Timothy J. McGinty Cuyahoga County Prosecutor By: Scott Zarzycki Mary H. McGrath Assistant County Prosecutors 8th Floor Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 KENNETH A. ROCCO, J.:

{¶1} Juan Banks has filed an application for reopening pursuant to App.R. 26(B).

Banks is attempting to reopen the appellate judgment, as rendered in State v. Banks, 8th

Dist. No. 97084,

, which affirmed his conviction for the offense of

murder with firearm specifications. We decline to reopen Banks’s appeal.

{¶2} App.R. 26(B)(2)(b) requires that Banks establish “a showing of good cause

for untimely filing if the application is filed more than 90 days after journalization of the

appellate judgment,” which is subject to reopening. The Supreme Court of Ohio, with

regard to the 90-day deadline as provided by App.R. 26(B)(2)(b), has established that:

* * * Consistent enforcement of the rule’s deadline by the appellate courts in Ohio protects on the one hand the state’s legitimate interest in the finality of its judgments and ensures on the other hand that any claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel are promptly examined and resolved.

Ohio and other states “may erect reasonable procedural requirements for triggering the right to an adjudication,” Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co. (1982),

,

,

, and that is what Ohio has done by creating a 90- day deadline for the filing of applications to reopen. * * *

* * * The 90-day requirement in the rule is applicable to all appellants, State v. Winstead (1996),

,

, and [the applicant] offers no sound reason why he — unlike so many other Ohio criminal defendants — could not comply with that fundamental aspect of the rule. (Emphasis added.)

State v. Gumm,

,

,

. See

also State v. Lamar,

,

,

; State v. Cooey,

,

,

; State v. Reddick,

,

,

.

{¶3} Herein, Banks is attempting to reopen the appellate judgment that was

journalized on June 7, 2012. The application for reopening was not filed until

September 6, 2012, more than 90 days after journalization of the appellate judgment in

Banks. Banks has failed to establish “a showing of good cause” for the untimely filing

of his application for reopening. In fact, Banks has not attempted to address the issue of

“good cause” vis-a-vis the untimely filing of his application for reopening. Thus, the

application for reopening fails on its face. State v. Klein, 8th Dist. No. 58389,

(Mar. 28, 1991), reopening disallowed, Motion No. 49260 (Mar.

15, 1994), aff’d,

,

(1994); State v. Trammell, 8th

Dist. No. 67834, Ohio App. LEXIS (July 13, 1995), reopening disallowed, Motion No.

70493 (Apr. 22, 1996); State v. Travis, 8th Dist. No. 56825, 1990 Ohio App. LEXIS (Apr.

5, 1990), reopening disallowed, Motion No. 51073 (Nov. 2, 1994), aff’d,

,

,

. See also State v. Gaston, 8th Dist. No. 79626,

(Jan. 17, 2007); State v. Torres, 8th Dist. No. 86530,

.

{¶4} Accordingly, the application for reopening is denied. _____________________________________ KENNETH A. ROCCO, JUDGE

MELODY J. STEWART, A.J., and MARY J. BOYLE, J., CONCUR