2014 Ohio 2384
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Orr sought to reopen the appellate judgment in State v. Orr, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 96377, 2011-Ohio-6269, based on ineffective assistance for not challenging firearm specifications merger.
- The appellate judgment Orr seeks to reopen was journalized December 8, 2011.
- Orr filed the App.R. 26(B) application for reopening on April 16, 2014, well beyond the 90-day deadline.
- App.R. 26(B)(2)(b) requires a showing of good cause if an untimely filing is to be considered.
- The court has consistently held lack of timeliness requires denial, unless good cause is shown; ignorance of law, limited resources, or pursuing other remedies do not constitute good cause.
- The court affirmed that merger of firearm specifications had been addressed on direct appeal and is not a proper basis for reopening.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the reopening application was timely | Orr | State | Untimely; denied |
| Whether good cause excused the late filing | Orr | State | No good cause shown; denied |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gumm, 103 Ohio St.3d 162 (2004-Ohio-4755) (strictly enforces 90-day deadline; good cause required for late filing)
- State v. Lamar, 102 Ohio St.3d 467 (2004-Ohio-3976) (good cause required for delayed reopening)
- State v. McNeal, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 91507 (2009-Ohio-6453) (no merit in reopening absent good cause)
- State v. Davis, 2013-Ohio-5015 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 97689, 97691 and 97692) (90-day rule strictly enforced)
- State ex rel. Dines v. Eighth Dist. Ct. of Appeals, 69 Ohio St.3d 1481 (1994) (ignorance of law not a basis for good cause)
- State v. Cummings, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 69966 (1996 Ohio App. LEXIS 4565) (reopening disallowed for lack of good cause)