State v. Hill, 2014 Ohio 3409

Rondell Hill applied under App.R. 26(B) to reopen this court’s judgment in State v. Hill, where his aggravated-murder conviction was modified to murder and the cause remanded for resentencing.
Hill contends appellate counsel was ineffective for not arguing that trial counsel should have requested a lesser-included-offense instruction on voluntary manslaughter.
Hill also alleges the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct by presenting perjured testimony and offering personal opinions in closing argument.
The 26(B) application was filed about 500 days after the court’s decision — well beyond the 90-day filing deadline.
Hill attempted to show good cause by claiming he lacked the transcript until October 2013 and that counsel failed to raise obvious (“dead bang”) issues.
The court rejected those excuses as insufficient to establish good cause and denied reopening.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not arguing trial counsel should have requested a voluntary manslaughter instruction	State: Application untimely and lacks good cause; merits not reached	Hill: Failure to raise this "dead bang" issue was ineffective assistance of appellate counsel	Denied — application untimely; Hill failed to show good cause for late filing
Whether the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct (perjured evidence, personal opinion in argument)	State: Same procedural defense — untimely; no adequate showing of good cause to reopen	Hill: Prosecutor’s misconduct warrants reopening and relief	Denied — application untimely; good-cause showing inadequate

State v. Murnahan, 63 Ohio St.3d 60 (1992) (establishes standard/procedure for reopening under App.R. 26(B))
State v. Reddick, 72 Ohio St.3d 88 (1995) (App.R. 26(B) not meant as open invitation to craft new appellate-ineffectiveness theories long after decisions)