2014 Ohio 4564
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Jarrells filed an application for reopening under App.R. 26(B) seeking review of the judgment in State v. Jarrells, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99329, 2013-Ohio-3813.
- The appellate judgment was journalized September 5, 2013; Jarrells filed July 17, 2014, outside the 90‑day deadline in App.R. 26(B)(1).
- The only potential exception to the deadline is a showing of good cause for late filing.
- Ohio Supreme Court precedent holds the 90‑day deadline is enforceable to protect finality and promptly address claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.
- Jarrells failed to establish good cause; miscommunication or late notice is not, by itself, a valid basis to excuse untimely reopening; the application is denied on timeliness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 90-day deadline bars reopening | State: deadline strict; untimely filing forecloses review. | Jarrells: seeks good cause for late filing due to delayed notice. | Untimely; no good cause shown; deadline applies to all. |
| Whether good cause exists to excuse the untimely filing | State: no good cause based on the record and case law. | Jarrells asserts delayed notice from clerk constitutes good cause. | No good cause; delays due to notice do not excuse untimely filing. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gumm, 103 Ohio St.3d 162 (2004-Ohio-4755) (90-day deadline applies to all applicants)
- State v. LaMar, 102 Ohio St.3d 467 (2004-Ohio-3976) (limits on reopening; good cause required for untimely filing)
- State v. Cooey, 73 Ohio St.3d 411 (1995) (reopening standards and timing principles)
- State v. Reddick, 72 Ohio St.3d 88 (1995) (timeliness and procedural requirements for reopening)
- State v. Winstead, 74 Ohio St.3d 277 (1996-Ohio-52) (mandatory adherence to 90-day deadline)
- Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422 (1982) (reasonableness of procedural requirements for triggering adjudication)