2014 Ohio 379
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Scott filed an App.R. 26(B) application to reopen the appellate judgment in State v. Scott, No. 98809 (8th Dist.)
- The appellate judgment affirmed Scott's convictions for kidnapping, felonious assault, aggravated robbery, theft, and having weapons while under disability, but vacated the sentence and remanded for a new sentencing hearing
- The application for reopening was journalized April 18, 2013 and the reopening filing occurred December 17, 2013
- Scott asserted good cause based on prison segregation conditions and limited access to legal materials
- The court denied the reopening, holding the 90-day deadline is strictly enforceable and no good cause was shown
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether good cause existed for untimely filing | Scott claimed segregation/limited access excused the delay | Court rejected such excuses as insufficient | No good cause; 90-day deadline applied |
| Whether the 90-day deadline for App.R. 26(B) reopening is enforceable | Requests reopening despite deadline due to conditions | Rule requires strict enforcement of 90-day period | Deadline enforceable; reopening denied |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gumm, 103 Ohio St.3d 162 (2004-Ohio-4755) (establishes 90-day reopening deadline applicability)
- State v. Lamar, 102 Ohio St.3d 467 (2004-Ohio-3976) (reinforces 90-day filing requirement and good cause standards)
- State v. Cooey, 73 Ohio St.3d 411 (1995-Ohio-328) (addresses untimely filings and good cause analysis)
- State v. Reddick, 72 Ohio St.3d 88 (1995-Ohio-248) (limits acceptable excuses for untimely reopening)
- State v. LaMar, 102 Ohio St.3d 467 (2004-Ohio-3976) (anchors rule-based finality and procedures for reopening)
- Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422 (1982) (provided framework for requiring procedural triggering rules)