State v. Hurt, 2012 Ohio 4268

Hurt pled guilty to rape and gross sexual imposition; sentence journalized March 19, 2009.
Hurt filed a pro se appeal on November 17, 2010; this court denied leave instanter and dismissed (State v. Hurt, 8th Dist. No. 96032).
Hurt filed an application for reopening with the clerk or this court alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel while he represented himself on direct appeal.
App.R. 26(B)(1) requires reopening within 90 days from journalization unless good cause shown; App.R. 26(B)(2)(b) requires good cause for untimely filing.
The journalization of dismissal was November 22, 2010; the reopening application was filed June 18, 2012, beyond 90 days; no good cause shown.
Hurt, who represented himself on direct appeal, is barred from reopening under State v. Gaston and State v. Effinger.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of reopening under App.R. 26(B).	Hurt argues reopening should be allowed.	Appellant failed to show good cause for late filing; untimely.	Denied for untimeliness.
Effect of self-representation on eligibility for reopening.	Hurt represented himself on direct appeal; merits reopening.	Self-represented defendant may not maintain reopening.	Denied based on self-representation.

State v. Welch, 8th Dist. No. 95577, 2012-Ohio-3351 (Ohio 2012) (denial of reopening for untimeliness when good cause not shown)
State v. Gumm, 103 Ohio St.3d 162, 2004-Ohio-4755 (Ohio 2004) (timeliness and good-cause requirements for reopening)
State v. LaMar, 102 Ohio St.3d 467, 2004-Ohio-3976 (Ohio 2004) (good cause required for late reopening)
State v. Almashni, 8th Dist. No. 92237, 2010-Ohio-898 (Ohio 2010) (reopening denied for lack of good cause)
State v. Gaston, 8th Dist. No. 92242, 2009-Ohio-3080 (Ohio 2009) (self-represented defendant cannot pursue reopening)
State v. Effinger, 8th Dist. No. 93450, 2009-Ohio-5242 (Ohio 2009) (reopening disallowed for self-represented appellant)