State v. Howell, 2011 Ohio 3683

Howell was convicted by a jury of aggravated robbery with firearm and forfeiture specs; two counts of felonious assault with firearm and forfeiture specs; and having weapons while under disability with a forfeiture spec.
This court affirmed on direct appeal in 2010 (State v. Howell, 2010-Ohio-3403).
The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed that judgment on the authority of Hodge (2011-Ohio-228).
Howell filed an application for reopening under App.R. 26(B), alleging ineffective appellate counsel and failure to hold a hearing to address jury misconduct.
The panel denied reopening because the filing was untimely (journalization July 22, 2010; filed June 28, 2011) and because no good cause was shown for late filing.
Additional grounds included that Howell’s pro se direct-appeal briefs and assignment of error precluded reopening by res judicata.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the reopening application was timely	Howell argues good cause exists for late filing	State argues untimely filing with no good cause	Untimely; no good cause shown
Whether inability to obtain transcripts constitutes good cause	Howell failed to receive trial transcripts from counsel	Inability to obtain transcripts does not excuse late filing	Not good cause; denial affirmed
Whether res judicata bars reopening when pro se direct-appeal brief was filed	Howell filed pro se brief; claims support reopening	Res judicata bars reopening after pro se brief filed	Res judicata bars reopening; denial affirmed

State v. Day, 2004-Ohio-1449 (Ohio 2004) (transcript-access issues insufficient for good cause)
State v. Gumm, 103 Ohio St.3d 162 (Ohio 2004) (untimely filing alone supports denial)
State v. LaMar, 102 Ohio St.3d 467 (Ohio 2004) (no good cause for late reopening)
State v. Collier, 2005-Ohio-5797 (Ohio 2005) (reopening disallowed when standards not met)
State v. Garcia, 2005-Ohio-5796 (Ohio 2005) (reopening disallowed where standards not satisfied)