State v. Bradley , 2013 Ohio 2152 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as State v. Bradley, 
    2013-Ohio-2152
    .]
    STATE OF OHIO, COLUMBIANA COUNTY
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
    SEVENTH DISTRICT
    STATE OF OHIO,                                )
    )    CASE NO. 
    11 CO 26
    PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,                   )
    )
    - VS -                                )       OPINION
    )         AND
    GREGORY L. BRADLEY, Jr.,                      )    JUDGMENT ENTRY
    )
    DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.                  )
    CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS:                          Application for Reopening
    Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas
    Court, Case No. 09 CR 291.
    JUDGMENT:                                          Application Denied.
    APPEARANCES:
    For Plaintiff-Appellee:                            Attorney Robert L. Herron
    Prosecuting Attorney
    Attorney John Gamble
    Asst. Prosecuting Attorney
    105 S. Market Street
    Lisbon, OH 44432
    For Defendant-Appellant:                           Gregory L. Bradley, Jr., Pro-se
    #604-551
    Richland Correctional Institution
    P.O. Box 8107
    Mansfield, OH 44901
    JUDGES:
    Hon. Mary DeGenaro
    Hon. Cheryl L. Waite
    Hon. Joseph J. Vukovich
    Dated: March 28, 2013
    [Cite as State v. Bradley, 
    2013-Ohio-2152
    .]
    PER CURIAM:
    {¶1}     Appellant Gregory Lewis Bradley, Jr., acting pro se, has filed an application
    to reopen his direct appeal based upon a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate
    counsel. However, Bradley's application is untimely, and he has failed to demonstrate
    good cause. Accordingly, his application to reopen his appeal is denied.
    {¶2}     On August 23, 2011, Bradley was convicted of three counts of drug
    trafficking in the vicinity of a juvenile and two counts of drug possession with forfeiture
    specifications and sentenced to an aggregate term of nine years in prison, following a jury
    trial in the Columbiana County Court of Common Pleas.
    {¶3}     On December 5, 2012, this court affirmed Bradley's conviction, but vacated
    his sentence and remanded for resentencing for the trial court to properly impose post-
    release control in accordance with R.C. 2929.191. State v. Bradley, 7th Dist. No. 
    11 CO 26
    , 
    2012-Ohio-5880
    , ¶35. Bradley has not pursued further appeal with the Ohio Supreme
    Court. On remand to the trial court, Bradley was resentenced on February 11, 2013.
    {¶4}     On March 11, 2013, Bradley filed the present application. He attached his
    own affidavit, in which he averred: (1) that he believed his appeal should be reopened
    due to appellate counsel's ineffectiveness; (2) that he believed counsel's performance
    prejudiced him; and (3) that he believed counsel should have raised several additional
    assignments of error. Bradley elaborated on those assignments of error in the body of his
    application.
    {¶5}     App.R. 26(B) allows a criminal defendant to challenge the constitutional
    effectiveness of appellate counsel by reopening the appeal. However, the rule provides
    that an application for reopening must be filed “within ninety days from journalization of
    the appellate judgment unless the applicant shows good cause for filing at a later time.”
    {¶6}     Bradley has failed to meet this deadline. Our opinion in his direct appeal
    was journalized on December 5, 2012. Bradley filed his application for reopening on
    March 11, 2013, 96 days later. Thus, we can only review the merits of Bradley's
    application if he can establish good cause for his untimely filing. See, e.g., State v. Dew,
    7th Dist. No. 08 MA 62, 
    2012-Ohio-434
    , ¶6.
    -2-
    {¶7}   Bradley failed to provide any reason for his untimeliness in the affidavit he
    attached to his application. As this court has previously explained:
    Appellant, like every other criminal defendant, was required to file his
    application for reopening within 90 days of the journalization of our
    judgment entry. "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.”
    State v. Styblo, 7th Dist. No. 07 BE 18, 
    2011-Ohio-2000
    , ¶7, quoting State v. Gumm, 
    103 Ohio St.3d 162
    , 
    2004-Ohio-4755
    , 
    814 N.E.2d 861
    , ¶7.
    {¶8}   Because Bradley has failed to establish, or even allege, good cause for his
    untimely filing, his application for reopening is denied.
    DeGenaro, P.J., concurs.
    Vukovich, J., concurs.
    Waite, J., concurs.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11 CO 26

Citation Numbers: 2013 Ohio 2152

Judges: Per Curiam

Filed Date: 5/28/2013

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014