2012 Ohio 94
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Pruitt pled guilty to attempted murder and having weapons while under disability in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-451979; conviction affirmed in State v. Pruitt, 2006-Ohio-4106, and the Supreme Court denied review.
- This court affirmed the judgment on direct appeal; the Supreme Court did not accept review.
- Pruitt filed an Application for Reopening under App.R. 26(B) alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, with two proposed assignments of error not raised on direct appeal.
- The appellate judgment was journalized on August 21, 2006; the reopening application was filed November 15, 2011, more than five years later.
- The trial court denied reopening; the denial was based on untimeliness and lack of good cause; reliance on counsel’s actions was deemed insufficient to establish good cause.
- Appellate Rule 26(B) standards require timely filing and a showing of good cause for untimely filings; court upheld denial for lack of good cause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the reopening application was timely and showed good cause | Pruitt argued good cause due to counsel's letter and failure to advise on 26(B) relief | State contends untimeliness and no valid good cause | Denied; untimeliness and no good cause suffice to deny |
Key Cases Cited
- Gumm v. State, 103 Ohio St.3d 162 (2004-Ohio-4755) (good cause requirement; untimeliness in reopening applications)
- LaMar v. State, 102 Ohio St.3d 467 (2004-Ohio-3976) (good cause for reopening not shown; timeliness governing)