State v. McNeal
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State v. McNeal, 2009-Ohio-6453.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 91507 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. TANYA MCNEAL DEFENDANT-APPELLANT JUDGMENT: APPLICATION DENIED Application for Reopening Motion No. 428494 Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Case No. CR-500391 RELEASE DATE: December 7, 2009 2 FOR APPELLANT Tanya McNeal, pro se #71761 N.E.P.R.C. 2675 E. 30th Street Cleveland, Ohio 44115 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE William D. Mason Cuyahoga County Prosecutor By: Sanjeev Bhasker Assistant County Prosecutor 8th Floor Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 MARY J. BOYLE, J.: {¶ 1} On November 18, 2009, Tanya McNeal filed an application for reopening pursuant to App.R. 26(B). She is attempting to reopen the appellate judgment that was rendered by this court in State v. McNeal, Cuyahoga App. No. 91507, 2009-Ohio-3888. In that opinion, we affirmed McNeal s convictions for drug possession and drug trafficking. For the following reason, we decline to reopen McNeal 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 3 if the application is filed more than ninety days after journalization of the appellate judgment." {¶ 3} This court's decision affirming McNeal s conviction was journalized on August 17, 2009. McNeal failed to file her application for reopening until November 18, 2009, beyond the 90-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, 1 MONTH DAYS AUGUST 14 SEPTEMBER 30 OCTOBER 31 NOVEMBER 18 TOTAL 93 4 2006-Ohio-5011, reopening disallowed, 2007-Ohio-848 (91 days); State v. Peyton, Cuyahoga App. No. 86797, 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 McNeal failed to demonstrate good cause for failing to file a timely application. {¶ 5} In her application, McNeal made no attempt to argue that there is good cause to accept her untimely filing. McNeal s failure to demonstrate good cause is a sufficient basis for denying her 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, McNeal has not met the standard for reopening. {¶ 6} Accordingly, the application for reopening is denied. MARY J. BOYLE, JUDGE COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, A.J., and PATRICIA A. BLACKMON, 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.
