State v. Barnes, 2011 Ohio 1916

Barnes applied to reopen this court’s judgment under App.R. 26(B) and Murnahan based on ineffective-assistance arguments.
The underlying 2010 decision affirmed Barnes’s convictions for two counts of sexual battery and one count of theft, with sentences to run consecutively.
Barnes asserted counsel was ineffective for not raising issues on consecutive sentences, sufficiency of the evidence, credibility/competency of the victim, lack of expert witnesses, and trial strategy.
The application was filed April 7, 2011, approximately six months after the appellate decision, making it facially untimely.
The court must determine whether good cause exists to excuse untimeliness under App.R. 26(B)(1) and (2).
The trial court denied the application to reopen.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the application was timely under App.R. 26(B).	Barnes argues good cause exists for delay.	State contends late filing is untimely.	Untimely on its face; no good cause shown.
Whether lack of knowledge/resources constitutes good cause.	Barnes lacked knowledge/resources to file timely.	Lack of knowledge/resources does not equate to good cause.	Lack of knowledge/resources does not establish good cause.
Whether lack of transcripts, legal counsel, or library access justifies late filing.	Barnes cites missing records/resources.	Court rejected these as good cause in precedent.	These factors do not establish good cause for untimely filing.
Whether continued representation by appellate counsel creates a duty to allow late filing.	Continued representation should not bar timely filing due to incompetence.	Continued representation does not excuse delay.	Strict ninety-day deadline must be enforced; no good cause.

State v. Lamar, 102 Ohio St.3d 467 (2004-Ohio-3976) (strictly enforces ninety-day deadline for App.R. 26(B) filings)
State v. Gumm, 103 Ohio St.3d 162 (2004-Ohio-4755) (confirms deadline enforcement; continued representation not good cause)