State v. Bradley
2013 Ohio 2152
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Bradley, acting pro se, seeks to reopen his direct appeal under App.R. 26(B) alleging ineffective appellate counsel.
- The application is untimely: judgment entry journalized December 5, 2012; Bradley filed March 11, 2013, 96 days late.
- Bradley was convicted August 23, 2011 of three counts of drug trafficking near a juvenile and two counts of drug possession with forfeiture specifications, receiving an aggregate nine-year sentence.
- This Court affirmed the conviction on December 5, 2012 but vacated the sentence and remanded for proper post-release control imposition; Bradley was resentenced February 11, 2013.
- Bradley did not demonstrate good cause for the untimely filing in his affidavit; the rule requires good cause to extend the deadline.
- The application to reopen is denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of the 26(B) application | Bradley contends good cause exists | State emphasizes strict 90-day deadline; no good cause shown | Untimely; no good cause established; denied |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Styblo, 2011-Ohio-2000 (7th Dist. No. 07 BE 18, 2011-Ohio-2000) (enforces deadline for reopening under App.R. 26(B))
- State v. Gumm, 2004-Ohio-4755 (Ohio Sup. Ct. 2004) (finality and timely review of claims in appellate process)
- State v. Dew, 2012-Ohio-434 (7th Dist. No. 08 MA 62, 2012-Ohio-434) (good cause requirement for late filings in reopenings)