State v. Battiste
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State v. Battiste, 2016-Ohio-7232.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 102299 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. JAYSON BATTISTE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT JUDGMENT: APPLICATION DENIED Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-13-579620-A Application for Reopening Motion No. 497564 RELEASE DATE: September 30, 2016 FOR APPELLANT Jayson Battiste, pro se Belmont Correctional Institution P.O. Box 540 St. Clairsville, Ohio 43950 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Timothy J. McGinty Cuyahoga County Prosecutor By: Maxwell Martin Mary M. Dyczek Assistant County Prosecutors 8th Floor Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, P.J.: {¶1} Jayson Battiste has filed an application for reopening pursuant to App.R. 26(B). Battiste is attempting to reopen the appellate judgment rendered in State v. Battiste, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102299, 2015-Ohio-3586, that affirmed his conviction and sentence for the offense of sexual battery. We decline to reopen Battiste’s appeal. {¶2} App.R. 26(B)(2)(b) requires that Battiste establish “a showing of good cause for untimely filing if the application is filed more than 90 days after journalization of the appellate judgment” that is subject to reopening. The Supreme Court of Ohio, with regard to the 90-day deadline provided by App.R. 26(B)(2)(b), has established that [w]e now reject [the applicant’s] claims that those excuses gave good cause to miss the 90-day deadline in App.R. 26(B). * * * 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. Ohio and other states “may erect reasonable procedural requirements for triggering the right to an adjudication,” Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co. (1982), 455 U.S. 422, 437, 102 S.Ct. 1148, 71 L.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, ¶ 7. See also State v. Lamar, 102 Ohio St.3d 467, 2004-Ohio-3976, 812 N.E.2d 970; State v. Cooey, 73 Ohio St.3d 411, 653 N.E.2d 252 (1995); State v. Reddick, 72 Ohio St.3d 88, 647 N.E.2d 784 (1995). {¶3} Herein, Battiste is attempting to reopen the appellate judgment that was journalized on September 3, 2015. The application for reopening was not filed until June 22, 2016, more than 90 days after journalization of the appellate judgment in Battiste, supra. Battiste has failed to argue any showing of good cause for the untimely filing of his application for reopening. It must also be noted that Battiste has failed to comply with App.R. 26(B)(2)(d), which mandates that the applicant must attach to the application for reopening “a sworn statement of the basis for the claim that appellate counsel’s representation was deficient.” State v. Doles, 75 Ohio St.3d 604, 665 N.E.2d 197 (1996); State v. Lechner, 72 Ohio St.3d 374, 650 N.E.2d 449 (1995); State v. Bates, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 97631, 97632, 97633, and 97634, 2015-Ohio-4176. {¶4} Accordingly, the application for reopening is denied. EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, PRESIDING JUDGE SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., and PATRICIA ANN 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.
