State v. Cruz

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State v. Cruz, 2002-Ohio-5459.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 78475 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE v. LUIS CRUZ DEFENDANT-APPELLANT : : : : : : : : : : JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Application for Reopening, Motion No. 40167. Lower Court No. CR-388715, Common Pleas Court. JUDGMENT: Application denied. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: OCTOBER 4, 2002 APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-appellee: WILLIAM D. MASON Cuyahoga County Prosecutor REBECCA MALECKAR STEVEN GRAINES Assistant County Prosecutors The Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 For Defendant-appellant: LUIS A. CRUZ, pro se #A395-210 P.O. Box 788 Unit 2C Lock 124 Mansfield, Ohio 44901 SWEENEY, JAMES D., P.J. {¶1} On July 22, 2002, the applicant, Luis Cruz, applied, pursuant to App.R. 26(B) and State v. Murnahan (1992), 63 Ohio 2 St.3d 60, 584 N.E.2d 1204, to reopen this court s judgment in State of Ohio v. Luis Cruz (Sept. 25, 2001), Cuyahoga App. No. 78475, in which this court affirmed his convictions and sentences for three counts of rape. For the following reasons this court denies the application sua sponte. {¶2} On December application to reopen. 10, 2001, Mr. Cruz filed his first This court denied that application because appellate counsel was not ineffective. Mr. Cruz s second application is not well taken because there is no right to file successive applications for reopening pursuant to App.R. 26(B). State v. Richardson, 74 Ohio St.3d 235, 1996-Ohio-258, 658 N.E.2d 273; State v. Cheren, 73 Ohio St.3d 137, 1995-Ohio-28, 652 N.E.2d 707; State v. Peeples, 73 Ohio St.3d 149, 1995-Ohio-36, 652 N.E.2d 717; State v. Sherrills (Sept. 18, 1997), Cuyahoga App. No. 56777, reopening disallowed, (Mar. 6, 2001), Motion No. 24318; and State v. Stewart (Nov. 19, 1998), Cuyahoga App. No. 73255, reopening disallowed (Nov. 2, 2001), Motion No. 32159. In State v. Reddick, 72 Ohio St.3d 88, 90-91, 1995-Ohio-249, 647 N.E.2d 784, the Supreme Court {¶3} of Ohio stated: Neither Murnahan nor App.R. 26(B) was intended as an open invitation for persons sentenced to long periods of incarceration to concoct new theories of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel in order to have a new round of appeals. 3 {¶4} Additionally, consideration of Mr. the Cruz s doctrine second of res judicata application for bars reopening because his new claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel was or could have been raised through his initial application of reopening. Stewart; State v. Phelps (Sept 30, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 69157, second reopening disallowed (Nov. 30, 1998), Motion No. 79992; and State v. Brantley (June 29, 1992), Cuyahoga App. No. 62412, second reopening disallowed (May 22, 1996), Motion No. 72855. Furthermore, Mr. Cruz in the second application again argues that his sentence was improper because the trial court thought that the victim was his niece, which Mr. Cruz denies. Mr. Cruz raised this issue in the first application, and this court explained why his counsel was not ineffective for not arguing the point. The issue Mr. Cruz presents is, thus, also properly barred by res judicata. {¶5} This court also notes that this second application is untimely pursuant to App.R. 26(B)(1) and (2)(b), which require that an application be filed within ninety days of the journalization of the appellate decision, unless the applicant shows good cause. Mr. Cruz makes no showing of good cause. {¶6} Accordingly, Mr. Cruz s second application for reopening is denied. COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, J., and DIANE KARPINSKI, J., CONCUR. 4 JAMES D. SWEENEY PRESIDING JUDGE

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.