State v. Gray
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State v. Gray, 2009-Ohio-4360.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 90981 STATE OF OHIO APPELLEE vs. LARRY GRAY APPELLANT JUDGMENT: APPLICATION DENIED APPLICATION FOR REOPENING MOTION NO. 425143 CUYAHOGA COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT NO. CR-487147 RELEASE DATE: August 25, 2009 2 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE William D. Mason Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 8th Floor Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 FOR APPELLANT Larry Gray, pro se #541-636 Trumbull Correctional Inst P.O. Box 901 Leavittsburg, Ohio 44430 LARRY A. JONES, J.: {¶ 1} On August 11, 2009, Larry Gray filed an application for reopening pursuant to App. R. 26(B). He is attempting to reopen the appellate judgment that was rendered by this court in State v. Gray, Cuyahoga App. No. 90981, 2009-Ohio-1782. In that opinion, we affirmed Gray s conviction for aggravated murder. For the following reason, we decline to reopen Gray s appeal: {¶ 2} 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." 3 {¶ 3} This court's decision affirming Gray s conviction was journalized on May 11, 2009. Gray, however, did not file his application for reopening until August 11, 2009, in excess of the ninety-day limit. 1 {¶ 4} 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). See, e.g., 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-3976, 812 N.E.2d 970. Similarly, this court has also denied applications to reopen when the application was untimely filed and the appellant failed to demonstrate good cause. See State v. Ellis, Cuyahoga App. No. 91116, 2009-Ohio-852, reopening disallowed, 2009-Ohio-2875 (92 days); State v. Burnett, Cuyahoga App. No. 87506, 2007-Ohio-284, reopening disallowed, 2007-Ohio-4434 (98 days); State v. Agosto, Cuyahoga App. No. 87283, 2006-Ohio-5011, reopening disallowed, 2007-Ohio-848 (91 days); State v. Peyton, Cuyahoga App. No. 86797, 1 Days Month 20 May 30 June 31 July 11 August 92 TOTAL 4 2006-Ohio-3951, reopening disallowed, 2007-Ohio-263 (93 days); and State v. Lowe, Cuyahoga App. No. 82997, 2004-Ohio-4622, reopening disallowed, 2005-Ohio-5986 (91 days). We need not, therefore, examine the merits of this application if Gray failed to demonstrate good cause for failing to file a timely application. {¶ 5} In his application, Gray made no attempt to argue that there is good cause to accept his untimely filing. Gray s failure to demonstrate good cause is a sufficient basis for denying his application for reopening. State v. Collier (June 11, 1987), Cuyahoga App. No. 51993, reopening disallowed 2005-Ohio-5797, Motion No. 370333; State v. Garcia (July 8, 1999), Cuyahoga App. No. 74427, reopening disallowed 2005-Ohio-5796, Motion No. 370916. As a consequence, Gray has not met the standard for reopening. {¶ 6} Accordingly, the application for reopening is denied. LARRY A. JONES, JUDGE MARY EILEEN KILBANE, P.J., and CHRISTINE T. MCMONAGLE, J., CONCUR
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
