State v. Austin, 2012 Ohio 1338

Austin pled guilty to aggravated murder with a one-year firearm specification in Cuyahoga C.P. Crim. Case No. CR-445932; the judgment was affirmed in 2006.
The Ohio Supreme Court denied leave to appeal and dismissed the related appeal as not involving a substantial constitutional question.
Austin filed an application for reopening under App.R. 26(B) asserting ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for not assigning error that trial counsel failed to investigate mental disorders, PTSD, and other impairments.
The application was filed on October 24, 2011, more than ninety days after the appellate judgment journalized on August 21, 2006, making it untimely absent good cause.
Austin claimed good cause due to a long history of mental disorders and reliance on an inmate legal clerk to assist in preparing filings.
The court compared Austin’s arguments to prior decisions, notably State v. Brooks, and held that mental illness and reliance on an inmate do not constitute good cause for untimely reopening.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the untimely reopening application was excused for good cause.	Austin argues mental illness and inmate assistance excused untimeliness.	State contends no good cause; filings were not timely and capability shown in prior pro se actions undermines claim.	No good cause; untimely filing denied.

State v. Sizemore, 126 Ohio App.3d 143 (8th Dist. 1998) (misplaced reliance on inmate not sufficient to establish good cause)
State v. Brooks, 2011-Ohio-1679 (8th Dist. 2011) (mental health issues not establishing good cause for untimely reopening)
State v. Gumm, 2004-Ohio-4755 (Ohio Supreme Court 2004) (good cause requirement for reopening timeliness)
State v. LaMar, 2004-Ohio-3976 (Ohio Supreme Court 2004) (good cause analysis for reopening applications)
State v. Almashni, 2010-Ohio-898 (8th Dist. 2010) (untimely reopening denied for lack of good cause)