State v. Bonneau
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State v. Bonneau, 2013-Ohio-696.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 97565 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. PAUL BONNEAU DEFENDANT-APPELLANT JUDGMENT: APPLICATION DENIED Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Case No. CR-545066 Application for Reopening Motion No. 457802 RELEASE DATE: February 26, 2013 [Cite as State v. Bonneau, 2013-Ohio-696.] APPELLANT Paul Bonneau No. 620-230 Grafton Correctional Institution 2500 Avon Belden Road Grafton, Ohio 44044 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Timothy J. McGinty Cuyahoga County Prosecutor By: Mark J. Mahoney Assistant County Prosecutor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 [Cite as State v. Bonneau, 2013-Ohio-696.] KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J.: {¶1} On August 20, 2012, the applicant, Paul Bonneau, pursuant to App.R. 26(B), applied to reopen this court s judgment in State v. Bonneau, 8th Dist. No. 97565, 2012-Ohio-3258, which affirmed Bonneau s convictions for three counts of gross sexual imposition and one count of kidnapping. Bonneau states that his appellate counsel was ineffective because he did not raise issues that Bonneau wanted raised on appeal. However, Bonneau does not state what those issues are, much less argue them. {¶2} App.R. 26(B)(2)(c) requires that an application to reopen have [o]ne or more assignments of error that were not considered on the merits * * *. Thus, the failure to state any assignments of error is a sufficient reason for denying an application to reopen. State v. Saunders, 8th Dist. No. 96643, 2010-Ohio-4586; and State v. Jackson, 8th Dist. No. 88345, 2007-Ohio-5431. Without any proposed assignments of error it is impossible to determine if a genuine issue exists as to whether the applicant was deprived of the effective assistance of appellate counsel, as required by App.R. 26(B)(5). [Cite as State v. Bonneau, 2013-Ohio-696.] {¶3} Moreover, the lack of counsel, the lack of money for counsel, and the lack of legal knowledge do not exempt an applicant from fulfilling the requirements for an App.R. 26(B) application to reopen. In State v. Lamar, 102 Ohio St.3d 467, 2004-Ohio-3976, 812 N.E.2d 970, ¶9, the Supreme Court of Ohio noted that many Ohio criminal defendants comply with the fundamental aspects of the rule despite lack of resources. Therefore, an applicant may not plead lack of an attorney, lack of effort or imagination, or ignorance of the law in failing to comply with the requirements of the rule. {¶4} Accordingly, this court denies the application to reopen. KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, JUDGE MARY J. BOYLE, P.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.
