State v. Henderson
2013 Ohio 2524
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Henderson, applicant, sought to reopen this court’s judgment under App.R. 26(B) and Murnahan.
- The underlying 2012 decision affirmed Henderson’s drug convictions (trafficking, possession, criminal tools).
- The May 7, 2013 application to reopen was filed about 14 months after journalization, rendering it facially untimely.
- Henderson argued lack of notice, record access issues, and time needed for research constituted good cause.
- The court held lack of transcript and delay do not establish good cause; 90-day deadline must be strictly enforced.
- Henderson, who represented himself, cannot later complain of ineffective assistance of counsel; Faretta and related authorities apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 90-day deadline for filing to reopen is strict. | Henderson contends good cause exists due to notice/record access. | Prosecution argues deadline must be strictly enforced with no good cause. | Yes; deadline strict, untimely. |
| Whether lack of notice/record access constitutes good cause for late filing. | Lack of notice and record access show good cause. | Such factors do not constitute good cause for untimely filing. | No; not good cause. |
| Whether self-representation bars later claims of ineffective assistance on appeal. | N/A (Henderson argues ineffective assistance by appellate counsel). | Precluded because Henderson represented himself. | Precluded; cannot claim ineffective assistance. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. LaMar, 102 Ohio St.3d 467 (2004-Ohio-3976) (strict 90-day deadline for App.R. 26(B) filings; lack of effort not good cause)
- State v. Gumm, 103 Ohio St.3d 162 (2004-Ohio-4755) (continued representation does not create good cause for lateness)
- State v. Lawson, 8th Dist. No. 84402 (2005-Ohio-880) (lack of transcript not sufficient for good cause)
- State v. Boone, 114 Ohio App.3d 275 (7th Dist.1996) (pro se defendant cannot claim ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (defendant who elects to represent himself cannot claim ineffective assistance of counsel)