State v. McKinnon, 2018 Ohio 1818

Defendant Scott McKinnon filed an App.R. 26(B) application to reopen his direct appeal from convictions for felonious assault and aggravated burglary.
The appellate judgment being challenged was journalized June 29, 2017; McKinnon filed the reopening application on March 23, 2018 (about six months late).
App.R. 26(B) requires reopening applications to be filed within 90 days of journalization or to show good cause for untimely filing.
McKinnon asserted he only recently learned—while using the prison library—that he could file an application to reopen.
App.R. 26(B)(2)(d) also requires a sworn statement detailing the basis for the claim that appellate counsel was deficient and how the deficiency prejudiced the appeal; McKinnon did not provide a sworn statement.
The court denied the application on grounds of untimeliness without sufficient good cause and for failure to submit the required sworn statement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of App.R. 26(B) application	Application must be timely; if not, require good cause for delay	Application filed ~6 months after journalization; untimely but McKinnon claims lack of earlier knowledge	Denied — filing was untimely and defendant failed to show good cause
Adequacy of asserted "good cause"	Limited library access does not establish good cause	McKinnon: only recently learned in prison library he could file for reopening	Denied — courts routinely reject limited access/late discovery as good cause
Compliance with App.R. 26(B)(2)(d) sworn-statement requirement	Applications must include a sworn statement explaining counsel deficiency and prejudice	McKinnon provided no sworn statement	Denied — failure to include required sworn statement is sufficient ground for denial

State v. Lechner, 72 Ohio St.3d 374 (Ohio 1995) (failure to comply with procedural requirements for reopening appeals may justify denial)