State v. Koreisl, 2011 Ohio 6438

Koreisl sought reopening of the appellate judgment in State v. Koreisl under App.R. 26(B).
The underlying judgment affirmed Koreisl’s conviction for rape, gross sexual imposition, and importuning.
The application for reopening was filed November 3, 2011, over 90 days after journalization of the March 19, 2009 judgment.
App.R. 26(B)(2)(b) requires a showing of good cause for untimely filing; the 90-day deadline is firmly established.
Koreisl argued reliance on appellate counsel and inability to obtain his appellate file as good cause, which the court rejected.
The court denied Koreisl’s application for reopening.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was good cause shown for untimely reopening?	Koreisl argued reliance on counsel and file access as good cause.	State argued no good cause and strict deadline applies.	No good cause; deadline enforced.

State v. Gumm, 103 Ohio St.3d 162, 2004-Ohio-4755 (Ohio Supreme Court 2004) (establishes a strict 90-day rule and need for good cause)
State v. LaMar, 102 Ohio St.3d 467, 2004-Ohio-3976 (Ohio Supreme Court 2004) (upholds 90-day reopening deadline application)
State v. Cooey, 73 Ohio St.3d 411, 1995-Ohio-328 (Ohio Supreme Court 1995) (analysis of reopened appeals and procedural requirements)
State v. Reddick, 72 Ohio St.3d 88, 1995-Ohio-249 (Ohio Supreme Court 1995) (procedural deadlines in appellate reopening)
Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 102 S. Ct. 1148, 71 L. Ed. 2d 265 (U.S. Supreme Court 1982) (recognizes reasonable procedural requirements for adjudication rights)
State v. Winstead, 74 Ohio St.3d 277, 658 N.E.2d 722 (Ohio Supreme Court 1996) (90-day deadline applicable to all appellants)