State v. Townsend
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State v. Townsend, 2013-Ohio-1653.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 97544 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. ALBERT TOWNSEND DEFENDANT-APPELLANT JUDGMENT: APPLICATION DENIED Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-531966 Application for Reopening Motion No. 460015 RELEASE DATE: April 19, 2013 FOR APPELLANT Albert Townsend, Pro Se Inmate No. 580-463 Richland Correctional Institution P.O. Box 8107 Mansfield, OH 44901 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Timothy J. McGinty Cuyahoga County Prosecutor BY: Mary H. McGrath Assistant County Prosecutor The Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street, 8th Floor Cleveland, OH 44113 MELODY J. STEWART, A.J.: {¶1} Albert Townsend has filed an application for reopening pursuant to App.R. 26(B). Through the original application for reopening, filed on November 7, 2012, Townsend is attempting to reopen the appellate judgment rendered in State v. Townsend, 8th Dist. No. 97544, 2012-Ohio-3452, which affirmed the trial court s denial of a postconviction motion. In addition, Townsend, through a motion to withdraw and to supplement amend [sic] cover page of this motion filed on November 7, 2012, is attempting to reopen the appellate judgment rendered by this court in State v. Townsend, 8th Dist. No. 94473, 2011-Ohio-86, which affirmed his conviction and sentence for the offenses of aggravated robbery, robbery, and having weapons while under disability. For the following reasons, we decline to reopen either of the two appeals previously filed by Townsend. {¶2} The appeal in Townsend, 8th Dist. No. 97544, supra, concerned the trial court s denial of a postconviction motion. However, an application for reopening, that is filed pursuant to App.R. 26(B), can only be employed to reopen an appeal from the judgment of conviction and sentence based upon a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. State v. Loomer, 76 Ohio St.3d 398, 1996-Ohio-59, 667 N.E.2d 1209; State v. Waver, 8th Dist. No. 97000, 2011-Ohio-6480. Since App.R. 26(B) applies only to the direct appeal of a criminal conviction and sentence, it cannot be employed to reopen an appeal that dealt with the denial of a postconviction motion. {¶3} The appeal, in State v. Townsend, 8th Dist. No. 94473, supra, involved Townsend s conviction and sentence for the offenses of aggravated robbery, robbery, and having weapons while under disability. Townsend, however, filed a prior application for reopening, in Townsend, 8th Dist. No. 94473, which precludes consideration of the present application for reopening. The Supreme Court firmly established that a defendant-appellant may not file successive applications for reopening. 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. {¶4} It must also be noted, that even if the present application for reopening was Townsend s first application for reopening, the application was filed untimely. The opinion in State v. Townsend, 8th Dist. No. 94473, supra, was journalized on January 13, 2011. Townsend was required to file a timely application for reopening, within 90 days of January 13, 2011, or establish good cause for its untimely filing. Townsend did not file this application for reopening until November 7, 2012, more than 90 days after journalization of the appellate judgment that he seeks to reopen. The failure to establish good cause requires that we decline to reopen his original appeal. 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; State v. Cooey, 73 Ohio St.3d 411, 1995-Ohio-328, 653 N.E.2d 252. {¶5} Accordingly, we deny the application for reopening. MELODY J. STEWART, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., and TIM McCORMACK, 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.
