2014 Ohio 2972
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Ricky Johnson, also known as Rodney Knuckles, sought to reopen an appellate judgment from State v. Johnson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 46837 (1983).
- He filed an App.R. 26(B) application for reopening on June 2, 2014, well beyond the 90-day deadline after journalization.
- The 90-day deadline is strictly enforced to protect finality and ensure prompt review of claims of ineffective appellate counsel.
- The trial court and appellate panel concluded Johnson failed to show good cause for untimely filing.
- The court denied the application for reopening.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Johnson showed good cause for untimely filing | Johnson (Johnson) argues for reopening based on grounds presented in 26(B) petition | State argues no good cause shown for the delay and adherence to the deadline is required | Denied; no good cause shown, deadline enforced |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gumm, 103 Ohio St.3d 162 (2004-Ohio-4755) (90-day deadline applies to reopenings; good cause required)
- State v. LaMar, 102 Ohio St.3d 467 (2004-Ohio-3976) (reopening standards for 26(B) applications)
- State v. Cooey, 73 Ohio St.3d 411 (1995-Ohio-328) (sets standards for reopening persistence)
- State v. Reddick, 72 Ohio St.3d 88 (1995-Ohio-248) (reopening standards and timely filing considerations)
- State v. Lamar, 102 Ohio St.3d 467 (2004-Ohio-3976) (allocation of 90-day deadline and good cause)
- State v. Winstead, 74 Ohio St.3d 277 (1996) (endorses the 90-day deadline for 26(B) applications)
- State v. Kinder, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 94722 (2012-Ohio-1339) (no good cause shown for untimely reopening)
- Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422 (1982) (recognizes procedural requirements for triggering right to adjudication)