l ^i ' } • ../ nov 0 8 2013 ^ 5^ o^`^^ ^tvr^ c^ t^ja^^a^v^" ^®s^t i i^3 \/i 0 b/niz-5...
TRANSCRIPT
IN THE OHIO SUPREME COURT
STATE OF OHIO
-VS-
CASE#
%i^r^•^ii" i
`l,•I "+•`,^ ^?•.`^ F .%i:?f ^^^.S ^
^,,"^ -iiF'1• ^ 1^^^%.±; ^• l±^
)
^'
Appellate Court# 93937
Trial Court#CR-517054
CLIFTON ONUNWOR On appeal from the 8th DistrictCourt of Appeals for Cuyahoga
: County , Ohio , as ruled on
September 24th 2013
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF JURISDICTION - Appeal as a Right
Now comes the defendant , Pro-Se , and humbly request of this
Honorable Court , that it accept Jurisdiction of this case,
as it involves Constitutional Questions of law , on a State &
Federal Level .
It is the prayer of the defendant , that this Motion is well
taken , and relief granted in the form of this Honorable Court ,
Accept Jurisdiction of this case .
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE:.
HUMBLY SUBMITTED ,
CL ON ONUNWOR#572-3744LeCI
P.O. Box 56Lebanon , Ohio 45036
I certify that a copy of this Motion was sent to the CuyahogaCounty Prosecutors Offi.ce , via U.S. Mail , this 30th day ofOctober , 2013 .
.2
CLI TON ONUNWOR
NOV 0 8 2013
C i:,E RK 0 F C 0 UI'.^a"^ 9
S5,a£'RENN; COU a s OF QHIO
f ti l ^i ' } • ../... . './
IA
^•'••^'•o ^nU;•^ r}^3::i^ ^
t--iiii S'si
o}^t•or-'•i}'^°, i^;'^;^;€?:^^^^4T +1f9%"^.^:^'^^:̂s, ............ . ......,,.. ^.. 4,,,».,,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pa6e No.
EXPLANATION OF WHY THIS IS A CASE OF PUBLIC OR GREATGENERAL INTEREST AND INVOLVES A SUBSTANTIAL ^CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTZON .........................: .:....... .... :..
STA"I,EMENT OF THE CASE AND FAC:TS ..............
ARGUME.NT IN SUP:PORT OF PIZOPOSITION OF LAW .............
''ROPOSITION OF LAW: .^ ........ .......... ........................................
IX
^ ...
. . .............^...
CONCLUSION ...... ................ .................. ........:..:...........::............................................................:^^
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE . ............................................._............... ...,..._. .:.:,.............. .....^..
APPENDIX
Judgm.ent Entry and Opinion, Court of Appeals, ^ O^ 0p,Count^r,( DATE ) --1_. ,). .. A-1
z
EXPLANATION OF WHY T:H[IS IS A CASE OF PUBLIC OR GR-EAT GENERALrNTERE ST AND INVOLVES A. SU33STANTIAL CONSTITUTION QUES'I'ION.
qll^
^, iSSl,tts +kJ h.aoi A-to J o w -i 4VL +^z. $/46 c- o ^ cc / /
I'.
WCLS
^^NL P,,V-C.o Rj 6 ,
A h,,J
4l RL. k9dvz- (-c..^AJ3 u 6 ej a^- -6^ vaS^ ^
il1icvca, ppopejZ^./ ^ +41 er.ifi^^^"G^^^
I
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND THE FACTS
A
h{} o1\)
oN2 C-oua J ^•^^^^^.^f^^^ f^^ ^ ^^e r^ ^^ve^ ^ C ^^^`^^
}'3^ +Olr'1 z-r"s ^/)
0'vt/Vtl ^,151D `^
OAt^^ .̂.^
c-t^ r y^ /^
- f i ck-a ' ` C1
36r\J i ALNU-P
' ` ^^^r^^ 1hY ^- ' "^ Uf
^
2
PI2.OPOSITIOI4T OF LAW
V-R o p nsi^i^;,^
W^Vvt C-e
Lur),+ ^ r^,f^e_. 'vlb^„
1 ,
a ►^^^,^^^'^^^ i I f 11"Ve-1^ 5^ O^`^^ ^tvr^ c^ t^Ja^^a^v^" ^®s^t 3i i^
\/i 0 b/Niz-5 ^^, Y't=^ &I,;,lli . a t14
u
Pa o
fs
^
,
^J^ j j
c orvs^fl ^T^ " ^} l =^
i
i-^pt^ ^
^
^'^ {n./ V( ,
U 0 al
4-L, iooe
^ ^^^ ^, -S i`Yt i A a c)()I - a1.fJ "' 6 ^
^^4f\,1 Ced( p6\:t d'-.tCoAj^
O,N4 C^L^I^€ ^U^ ► ^^^ ^ ^^t n
di/ P&O p e,/j^O ^ sAafi RCCO,
lk-^- U{ ^r 6^v54x6v,c^oe ^ ao^
w 4k rry^ ) r e_ .
SeT
8(ft/advc ^ ) fO tz ^ i rle-
CO;v vr-ChO;l)
^jvjtvwa^
3
N THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
S"I'ATE OF OHIO,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
Lf R'qtj onlw^w^e'
Case No.
On Appeal from theCountv Court of Appeals
Appellate District
C.A. Case No. C\ 0,39I)efenclant-Appellanf.
APPEI`iDIX TO
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF JURISDICTIONtV i N t.-1 0 12,OF APPELLANT 0
SEP 2 4 2013
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District
County of CuyahogaAndrea Rocco, C(erk of Courts
STATE OF OHIO
Appe!!e¢ COA NO. LOWER COURT NO.93937 CP CR-517054
COMMON PLEAS COURT-vs-
^+
rw
^
CLfFTON ONUNWOR
Appellant MOTION NO. 467933
Date 09/24/13
Journal Entry
Motion by Appellant, pro se, to reopen direct appeal pursuant to App.R.26(B) is denied (see journal entry
and opinion of same date).
FILED AND J®URNALIZED
PER APP,R, 22(C)
SEP 2 4 2013
C;;ftirY CLERf^
OF THE APPEALSBy Deputy
Presiding Judge SEAN C. GALLAGHER,Concurs
Judge KENNEl"H A. ROCCO, ConcursMARY E EEN KILBANEJudge
SEP 24 240
Court of 1ppiah of jtoEIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COtTNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINIONNo. 93937
STATE OF OHIO
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
vs.
CLIFTON ONUNWOR
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
-------------------------- -- ------- -------- -
JU1J V11T1EN.i, s
APPLICATION DENIED
Cuyahoga County Court of Common PleasCase No. CR-517054
Application for Reopening
Motion No. 467933
RELEASE DATE: September 24, 2013
-i-
;`
Sr%
tt;t
F 4}
;^
^1.
APPELLANT
Clifton Onunwor, pro seInmate No. 572-374Lebanon Correctional InstitutionP.O. Box 56Lebanon, Ohio 45036
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
,"irmothy J. M;,0intyCuyahoga County Prosecutor
By: Lisa M. Stickan
Assistant County Prosecutor
8th Floor Justice Center
1200 Ontario StreetCleveland, Ohio 441. ? 3
FILED AND JOURNALIZEDPER APP,R. 22(C)
SEP 2 4 .2013,^ "'^^
CUYAH aA Op^.fY CLERKC7F 'fHE PPEALS
BY " ^ ^^ Deputy
N1AII,Y EILEEN KILBANE, J.:
{¶ 1} Cliffton Onunwor has filed an application for reopening pursuant to
App.R. 26(B). Onunwor is attempting to reopen the appellate judgment
rendered in State U. Onunwor, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 93937, 2010-Ohio-5587,
which affirmed his conviction for the offenses of aggravated murder and
tampering with evidence. We decline to reopen Onunwor's appeal.
{^2} App.R. 26(B)(2)(b) requires that Onunwor 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:
We now reject [the applicant's] claims that those excuses gave goodcause to miss the 90-day deadline in App.R. 26(B).* * * Consistentenforcement of the rule's deadline by the appellate courts in Ohioprotects on the one hand the state's legitimate interest in thefinality of its judgmei-its and ensures on the other hand that anyclaims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel are promptlyexamined and resolved.
Ohio and other states "m.ay erect reasonable procedural.r.equi.rexnents for triggering the right to an adjudication.," Logan v.Zin-imerman Brush Co. (1982), 455 U.S. 422, 437,102 S.Ct. 1148, 71L.Ed.2d 265, 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), 74 Ohio St.3d 277, 278, 658 N.E.2d 722, 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,103 Ohio St.3d 162, 2004-Ohio-4755, 814 N.E.2d 861, at ^ 7. See
also State v. Lamar, 102 Ohio St.3d 467, 2004-Ohi.o-3976, 812N.E.2d 970; State v. Cooey, 73 Ohi.o St.3d 41 ]., 1995-Ohio-328, 653N.E.2d 252; State v. Reddick, 72 Ohio St.3d 88, 1995-Ohio-248, 647N.E.2d 784
{¶3} Herein, Onunwor is attempting to reopen the appellate judgment
that was journalized on November 18, 2010. The application for reopening was
not filed until August 18, 2013, more than 90 days after journalization of the
appellate judgment in Onu:juoor, supra. Onunwor argues that "good cause" for
his untimely filing is established by his limited access to the prison law library.
The courts, however, have repeatedly rejected the claim that limited access to
a law library and legal materials states good cause for untimely filing. Prison
riots, lockdowns, and other library limitations have also been rejected. as
constituting good cause. State v. Tucker, 73 Ohio St.3d 152, 1995-Ohio-2, 652
N.E.2d 720; State v. Kaszas, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 72546 and 72547, 1998
Ohio App. LEXIS 4227 (Sept. 1.0, 1998), reopening disallowed, 2000 Ohio App.
LEXIS 3755 (Aug. 14, 2000); State v. Ilickaian, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 72341,
Ohio App. LEXIS 1893 (Apr. 30, 1998), reopening disallot,ved, 2000 Ohio App.
LEXIS 6079 (Dec. 13, 2000), and State v. Turner, Sth Dist. Cuyahoga No. 55960
(Nov. 16, 1989), reopening disallowed, 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 3774 (Aug. 20,
2001).
{fi4} Onunwor has failed to establish "a showing of good cause" for the
untimely filing of his application for reopening. State v. Lflein, 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 58389, Uh:io App. LEXIS 1346 (Apr. 8,1991), reopeningdisallowed
CMar. 15, 1994), Motion No. 49260, aff'd, 69 Ohio St.3d 1481, 634 N.E.2d 1027
(1994); State v. Trammell, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 67834, 1995 Ohio A.pp. LEXIS
2962 (July 24, 1995), reopening disallowed (Apr. 22, 1996), Motion No. 70493;
State U. Travis, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No, 56825, 1990 Ohio App. LEXIS 1356
(Apr. 5, 1990), reopening disallowed (Nov. 2, 1994), Motion No. 51073, a,ff'd, 72
Ohio St.3d 317, ^.995-Ohio-1v2, 649 N.E.2d. 1226. See also xS`taie v. Gaston, 8th
Dist. Cuyahoga No. 79626, 2007-Ohio-155; State v. Torres, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga
No. 86530, 2007-Ohio-9.
{¶5} Accordingly, the application for reopening is denied.
NIA.RY./JEILEEN KILBANE, JUDGE
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, P.J., andKENNETH A. ROCCO, J., CONCUR