Full text
State v. Bartoe
[Cite as State v. Bartoe, 2012-Ohio-154.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 95286
STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
vs.
JACOB BARTOE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
JUDGMENT: APPLICATION DENIED
Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Case No.CR-529964 Application for Reopening Motion No. 446562
RELEASE DATE: January 17, 2012
FOR APPELLANT
Jacob Bartoe Inmate No. 584382 North Central Correctional Inst. P. O. Box 1812 Marion, Ohio 43302
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
William D. Mason Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
By: Daniel T. Van Justice Center, 8th Fl. 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, OH 44113
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, P.J.:
{¶ 1} In State v. Bartoe, Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-529964, applicant, Jacob Bartoe, was convicted of two counts of aggravated robbery and two counts of kidnapping, each with firearm and forfeiture specifications. For the purpose of sentencing, the state elected to go forward on one count of aggravated robbery. This court affirmed that judgment in State v. Bartoe, 8th Dist. No. 95286, 2011-Ohio-2521.
{¶ 2} Although Bartoe argues that there is good cause for the untimely filing of his application, he has filed with the clerk of this court a timely application for reopening. We deny the application for reopening. As required by App.R. 26(B)(6), the reasons for our denial follow.
{¶ 3} Bartoe’s application does not contain “[o]ne or more assignments of error or arguments in support of assignments of error that previously were not considered on the merits in the case by any appellate court or that were considered on an incomplete record because of appellate counsel’s deficient representation” as required by App.R. 26(B)(2)(c). It is well established that the failure to state assignments of error is a sufficient ground for denying an application for reopening. See, e.g., State v. Fryerson, 8th Dist. No. 91960, 2009-Ohio-4227, reopening disallowed, 2010-Ohio-1852, ¶ 8.
{¶ 4} Additionally, Bartoe did not support his application with a sworn statement as required by App.R. 26(B)(2)(d). The failure to support an application for reopening with a sworn statement is a ground for denying the application. See, e.g., State v. Thomas, 8th Dist. No. 94042, 2010-Ohio-5237, reopening disallowed, 2011-Ohio-6070.
{¶ 5} As a consequence, Bartoe has not met the standard for reopening. Accordingly, the application for reopening is denied.