2011 Ohio 5490
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- The applicant, Larry Bess, sought to reopen this court’s judgment in State v. Larry Bess, 2009-Ohio-2032, under App.R. 26(B) and Murnahan.
- The underlying 2009 judgment affirmed Bess’s convictions for three counts of rape and two counts of gross sexual imposition.
- The August 29, 2011 application to reopen was filed more than two years after journalization, making it untimely.
- Bess argued good cause existed because appellate counsel failed to inform him about the reopening remedy, and he would have filed timely if informed.
- The court held that lack of knowledge of the law and reliance on counsel do not constitute good cause for untimely filing.
- Accordingly, the application to reopen was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness and good cause for reopening | Bess argues lack of knowledge and counsel failure show good cause. | State contends untimeliness cannot be cured by such excuses. | Untimely; no good cause shown; application denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Klein, 69 Ohio St.3d 1481 (Ohio 1994) (ignorance of the law not good cause for reopening)
- State v. Lamar, 812 N.E.2d 970 (Ohio 2004) (ninety-day filing deadline strictly enforced)
- State v. Gumm, 814 N.E.2d 861 (Ohio 2004) (ninety-day deadline strictly enforced)
- State v. Lamar (alternative citation), 102 Ohio St.3d 467 (Ohio 2004) (reaffirmed strict enforcement of the 90-day deadline)
- State v. White, 75 Ohio App.3d 288 (Ohio App. 1991) (reopening disallowed; lack of communication not good cause)