IN THE OHIO SUPREME COURT

STATE OF OHIO

-VS-

CASE#

%i^r^•^ii" i

`l,•I "+•`,^ ^?•.`^ F .%i:?f ^^^.S ^

^,,"^ -iiF'1• ^ 1^^^%.±; ^• l±^

)

^'

Appellate Court# 93937

Trial Court#CR-517054

CLIFTON ONUNWOR On appeal from the 8th DistrictCourt of Appeals for Cuyahoga

: County , Ohio , as ruled on

September 24th 2013

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF JURISDICTION - Appeal as a Right

Now comes the defendant , Pro-Se , and humbly request of this

Honorable Court , that it accept Jurisdiction of this case,

as it involves Constitutional Questions of law , on a State &

Federal Level .

It is the prayer of the defendant , that this Motion is well

taken , and relief granted in the form of this Honorable Court ,

Accept Jurisdiction of this case .

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE:.

HUMBLY SUBMITTED ,

CL ON ONUNWOR#572-3744LeCI

P.O. Box 56Lebanon , Ohio 45036

I certify that a copy of this Motion was sent to the CuyahogaCounty Prosecutors Offi.ce , via U.S. Mail , this 30th day ofOctober , 2013 .

.2

CLI TON ONUNWOR

NOV 0 8 2013

C i:,E RK 0 F C 0 UI'.^a"^ 9

S5,a£'RENN; COU a s OF QHIO

f ti l ^i ' } • ../... . './

IA

^•'••^'•o ^nU;•^ r}^3::i^ ^

t--iiii S'si

o}^t•or-'•i}'^°, i^;'^;^;€?:^^^^4T +1f9%"^.^:^'^^:̂s, ............ . ......,,.. ^.. 4,,,».,,

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Pa6e No.

EXPLANATION OF WHY THIS IS A CASE OF PUBLIC OR GREATGENERAL INTEREST AND INVOLVES A SUBSTANTIAL ^CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTZON .........................: .:....... .... :..

STA"I,EMENT OF THE CASE AND FAC:TS ..............

ARGUME.NT IN SUP:PORT OF PIZOPOSITION OF LAW .............

''ROPOSITION OF LAW: .^ ........ .......... ........................................

IX

^ ...

. . .............^...

CONCLUSION ...... ................ .................. ........:..:...........::............................................................:^^

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE . ............................................._............... ...,..._. .:.:,.............. .....^..

APPENDIX

Judgm.ent Entry and Opinion, Court of Appeals, ^ O^ 0p,Count^r,( DATE ) --1_. ,). .. A-1

z

EXPLANATION OF WHY T:H[IS IS A CASE OF PUBLIC OR GR-EAT GENERALrNTERE ST AND INVOLVES A. SU33STANTIAL CONSTITUTION QUES'I'ION.

qll^

^, iSSl,tts +kJ h.aoi A-to J o w -i 4VL +^z. $/46 c- o ^ cc / /

I'.

WCLS

^^NL P,,V-C.o Rj 6 ,

A h,,J

4l RL. k9dvz- (-c..^AJ3 u 6 ej a^- -6^ vaS^ ^

il1icvca, ppopejZ^./ ^ +41 er.ifi^^^"G^^^

I

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND THE FACTS

A

h{} o1\)

oN2 C-oua J ^•^^^^^.^f^^^ f^^ ^ ^^e r^ ^^ve^ ^ C ^^^`^^

}'3^ +Olr'1 z-r"s ^/)

0'vt/Vtl ^,151D `^

OAt^^ .̂.^

c-t^ r y^ /^

- f i ck-a ' ` C1

36r\J i ALNU-P

' ` ^^^r^^ 1hY ^- ' "^ Uf

^

2

PI2.OPOSITIOI4T OF LAW

V-R o p nsi^i^;,^

W^Vvt C-e

Lur),+ ^ r^,f^e_. 'vlb^„

1 ,

a ►^^^,^^^'^^^ i I f 11"Ve-1^ 5^ O^`^^ ^tvr^ c^ t^Ja^^a^v^" ^®s^t 3i i^

\/i 0 b/Niz-5 ^^, Y't=^ &I,;,lli . a t14

u

Pa o

fs

^

,

^J^ j j

c orvs^fl ^T^ " ^} l =^

i

i-^pt^ ^

^

^'^ {n./ V( ,

U 0 al

4-L, iooe

^ ^^^ ^, -S i`Yt i A a c)()I - a1.fJ "' 6 ^

^^4f\,1 Ced( p6\:t d'-.tCoAj^

O,N4 C^L^I^€ ^U^ ► ^^^ ^ ^^t n

di/ P&O p e,/j^O ^ sAafi RCCO,

lk-^- U{ ^r 6^v54x6v,c^oe ^ ao^

w 4k rry^ ) r e_ .

SeT

8(ft/advc ^ ) fO tz ^ i rle-

CO;v vr-ChO;l)

^jvjtvwa^

3

N THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

S"I'ATE OF OHIO,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

Lf R'qtj onlw^w^e'

Case No.

On Appeal from theCountv Court of Appeals

Appellate District

C.A. Case No. C\ 0,39I)efenclant-Appellanf.

APPEI`iDIX TO

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF JURISDICTIONtV i N t.-1 0 12,OF APPELLANT 0

SEP 2 4 2013

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District

County of CuyahogaAndrea Rocco, C(erk of Courts

STATE OF OHIO

Appe!!e¢ COA NO. LOWER COURT NO.93937 CP CR-517054

COMMON PLEAS COURT-vs-

^+

rw

^

CLfFTON ONUNWOR

Appellant MOTION NO. 467933

Date 09/24/13

Journal Entry

Motion by Appellant, pro se, to reopen direct appeal pursuant to App.R.26(B) is denied (see journal entry

and opinion of same date).

FILED AND J®URNALIZED

PER APP,R, 22(C)

SEP 2 4 2013

C;;ftirY CLERf^

OF THE APPEALSBy Deputy

Presiding Judge SEAN C. GALLAGHER,Concurs

Judge KENNEl"H A. ROCCO, ConcursMARY E EEN KILBANEJudge

SEP 24 240

Court of 1ppiah of jtoEIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

COtTNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINIONNo. 93937

STATE OF OHIO

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

vs.

CLIFTON ONUNWOR

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

-------------------------- -- ------- -------- -

JU1J V11T1EN.i, s

APPLICATION DENIED

Cuyahoga County Court of Common PleasCase No. CR-517054

Application for Reopening

Motion No. 467933

RELEASE DATE: September 24, 2013

-i-

;`

Sr%

tt;t

F 4}

;^

^1.

APPELLANT

Clifton Onunwor, pro seInmate No. 572-374Lebanon Correctional InstitutionP.O. Box 56Lebanon, Ohio 45036

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

,"irmothy J. M;,0intyCuyahoga County Prosecutor

By: Lisa M. Stickan

Assistant County Prosecutor

8th Floor Justice Center

1200 Ontario StreetCleveland, Ohio 441. ? 3

FILED AND JOURNALIZEDPER APP,R. 22(C)

SEP 2 4 .2013,^ "'^^

CUYAH aA Op^.fY CLERKC7F 'fHE PPEALS

BY " ^ ^^ Deputy

N1AII,Y EILEEN KILBANE, J.:

{¶ 1} Cliffton Onunwor has filed an application for reopening pursuant to

App.R. 26(B). Onunwor is attempting to reopen the appellate judgment

rendered in State U. Onunwor, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 93937, 2010-Ohio-5587,

which affirmed his conviction for the offenses of aggravated murder and

tampering with evidence. We decline to reopen Onunwor's appeal.

{^2} App.R. 26(B)(2)(b) requires that Onunwor establish "a showing of

good cause for untimely filing if the application is filed more than 90 days after

journalization of the appellate judgment," which is subject to reopening, The

Supreme Court of Ohio, with regard to the 90-day deadline as provided by

App.R. 26(B)(2)(b), has established that:

We now reject [the applicant's] claims that those excuses gave goodcause to miss the 90-day deadline in App.R. 26(B).* * * Consistentenforcement of the rule's deadline by the appellate courts in Ohioprotects on the one hand the state's legitimate interest in thefinality of its judgmei-its and ensures on the other hand that anyclaims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel are promptlyexamined and resolved.

Ohio and other states "m.ay erect reasonable procedural.r.equi.rexnents for triggering the right to an adjudication.," Logan v.Zin-imerman Brush Co. (1982), 455 U.S. 422, 437,102 S.Ct. 1148, 71L.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, at ^ 7. See

also State v. Lamar, 102 Ohio St.3d 467, 2004-Ohi.o-3976, 812N.E.2d 970; State v. Cooey, 73 Ohi.o St.3d 41 ]., 1995-Ohio-328, 653N.E.2d 252; State v. Reddick, 72 Ohio St.3d 88, 1995-Ohio-248, 647N.E.2d 784

{¶3} Herein, Onunwor is attempting to reopen the appellate judgment

that was journalized on November 18, 2010. The application for reopening was

not filed until August 18, 2013, more than 90 days after journalization of the

appellate judgment in Onu:juoor, supra. Onunwor argues that "good cause" for

his untimely filing is established by his limited access to the prison law library.

The courts, however, have repeatedly rejected the claim that limited access to

a law library and legal materials states good cause for untimely filing. Prison

riots, lockdowns, and other library limitations have also been rejected. as

constituting good cause. State v. Tucker, 73 Ohio St.3d 152, 1995-Ohio-2, 652

N.E.2d 720; State v. Kaszas, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 72546 and 72547, 1998

Ohio App. LEXIS 4227 (Sept. 1.0, 1998), reopening disallowed, 2000 Ohio App.

LEXIS 3755 (Aug. 14, 2000); State v. Ilickaian, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 72341,

Ohio App. LEXIS 1893 (Apr. 30, 1998), reopening disallot,ved, 2000 Ohio App.

LEXIS 6079 (Dec. 13, 2000), and State v. Turner, Sth Dist. Cuyahoga No. 55960

(Nov. 16, 1989), reopening disallowed, 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 3774 (Aug. 20,

2001).

{fi4} Onunwor has failed to establish "a showing of good cause" for the

untimely filing of his application for reopening. State v. Lflein, 8th Dist.

Cuyahoga No. 58389, Uh:io App. LEXIS 1346 (Apr. 8,1991), reopeningdisallowed

CMar. 15, 1994), Motion No. 49260, aff'd, 69 Ohio St.3d 1481, 634 N.E.2d 1027

(1994); State v. Trammell, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 67834, 1995 Ohio A.pp. LEXIS

2962 (July 24, 1995), reopening disallowed (Apr. 22, 1996), Motion No. 70493;

State U. Travis, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No, 56825, 1990 Ohio App. LEXIS 1356

(Apr. 5, 1990), reopening disallowed (Nov. 2, 1994), Motion No. 51073, a,ff'd, 72

Ohio St.3d 317, ^.995-Ohio-1v2, 649 N.E.2d. 1226. See also xS`taie v. Gaston, 8th

Dist. Cuyahoga No. 79626, 2007-Ohio-155; State v. Torres, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga

No. 86530, 2007-Ohio-9.

{¶5} Accordingly, the application for reopening is denied.

NIA.RY./JEILEEN KILBANE, JUDGE

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, P.J., andKENNETH A. ROCCO, J., CONCUR