State v. Dew, 2012 Ohio 434

Dew was convicted in Mahoning County Common Pleas Court of four counts of rape, two counts of gross sexual imposition, and one count of corruption of a minor in 2008; aggregate 43-year sentence.
On appeal, the Seventh District reversed in part on December 1, 2009, vacating two counts due to lack of evidentiary support for force or threat of force, resulting in a 31.5-year remainder.
Dew pursued reconsideration and sought jurisdictional review; the Ohio Supreme Court denied jurisdiction in 2010; the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in 2010.
Dew sought to extend the number of pages for a delayed App.R. 26(B) reopening petition in 2011, which the court denied because the case was closed.
On November 14, 2011, Dew filed the current pro se application to reopen with affidavits; the State replied; the court denied for untimeliness and failure to show good cause, citing the 90-day deadline and lack of demonstrated delay or excusable neglect.
The court emphasized that Dew filed the reopening application nearly two years after journalization of the judgment and did not establish good cause for the delay.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Dew established good cause to excuse untimely filing under App.R. 26(B)	Dew contends incarceration impeded evidence gathering and delayed filing.	Incarceration alone does not constitute good cause to extend the filing deadline.	No good cause; motion to reopen denied.

State v. Gumm, 103 Ohio St.3d 162 (2004-Ohio-4755) (deadline enforcement protects finality and prompt consideration of claims)
State v. Styblo, 2011-Ohio-2000 (7th Dist. 2011) (discusses requirements for establishing good cause for delay)