2012 Ohio 3565
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Gray sought to reopen the appellate judgment (No. 92646, 2010-Ohio-11) under App.R. 26(B).
- The application was filed April 18, 2012, more than 90 days after journalization of the judgment (January 7, 2010).
- The rule requires a showing of good cause for untimely filing; the 90-day deadline is strictly enforced.
- Gray argued miscellaneous excuses (ineffective assistance, counsel issues) as good cause.
- The court held Gray failed to establish good cause and denied reopening.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gray showed good cause for late filing | Gray | Gray failed to show good cause | denied |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gumm, 103 Ohio St.3d 162 (2004-Ohio-4755) (strict 90-day deadline applies to all appellants; no sound reason for delay)
- State v. Winstead, 74 Ohio St.3d 277 (1996-Ohio-277) (90-day deadline governs reopening)
- State v. Lamar, 102 Ohio St.3d 467 (2004-Ohio-3976) (reinforces 90-day requirement)
- State v. Cooey, 73 Ohio St.3d 411 (1995-Ohio-328) (supports application of 90-day rule)
- State v. Reddick, 72 Ohio St.3d 88 (1995-Ohio-248) (further authority on timely reopening)
- Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422 (1982) (federal constraint on triggering adjudication rights; respect finality)