State v. Banks
2013 Ohio 163
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Juan Banks filed an application for reopening under App.R. 26(B) seeking to reopen the appellate judgment in State v. Banks, 8th Dist. No. 97084, 2012-Ohio-2495.
- The appellate judgment affirmed Banks’s murder conviction with firearm specifications; journalization occurred on June 7, 2012.
- Banks filed the application for reopening on September 6, 2012, more than 90 days after journalization.
- App.R. 26(B)(2)(b) requires a showing of good cause for untimely filings; Ohio Supreme Court precedent enforces the 90-day deadline.
- Banks did not address or establish good cause for the untimely filing, and thus his application was facially deficient.
- The court denied Banks’s application for reopening.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 90-day deadline applies to reopening | Banks failed to show good cause for untimely filing. | App.R. 26(B) deadline is enforceable and requires good cause for untimeliness. | Timeliness requirement applied; no good cause shown. |
| Whether Banks’ untimely filing warranted reopening consideration | Untimely filing cannot be considered without good cause. | Without good cause, the application should be denied. | Application for reopening denied for lack of good cause. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gumm, 103 Ohio St.3d 162 (2004-Ohio-4755) (90-day deadline enforceable; good-cause standard)
- State v. Lamar, 102 Ohio St.3d 467 (2004-Ohio-3976) (reopening standards under App.R. 26(B))
- State v. Cooey, 73 Ohio St.3d 411 (1995-Ohio-328) (timeliness and good-cause requirements)
- State v. Reddick, 72 Ohio St.3d 88 (1995-Ohio-248) (procedural reopening standards)
- Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422 (1982) (constitutional considerations of triggering rights and deadlines)