State v. Styblo
2011 Ohio 2000
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Appellant Keith Styblo seeks to reopen his direct appeal under App.R. 26(B)(5) on claims of ineffective appellate counsel and trial-related issues.
- The underlying direct appeal affirmed convictions for three counts of rape and two counts of gross sexual imposition; no further appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court was taken.
- The journalized opinion deciding the direct appeal was dated September 18, 2008.
- The delayed reopening application was filed February 22, 2011, more than 90 days after journalization.
- Appellant argues good cause for late filing due to lack of notice and prison guidance, but no affidavits were submitted to support these assertions.
- Court dismisses the reopening application as untimely and lacking demonstrated good cause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of the App.R. 26(B)(1) filing | Styblo contends good cause extended the deadline. | State contends no good cause; filing was untimely. | Untimely; no good cause shown. |
| Good cause and evidentiary support | Delayed filing due to lack of notice and prison impediments. | No affidavits or record support; no good cause established. | No good cause; dismissal affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Reed, 74 Ohio St.3d 534 (1996) (two-prong Strickland standard for App.R. 26(B)(5) reopening; deficiency and reasonable probability standard)
- State v. Tribble, 2010-Ohio-1108 (7th Dist.) (collateral nature of App.R. 26(B) process; may be filed around direct appeal decisions)
- State v. Gumm, 103 Ohio St.3d 162 (2004) (finality interest and prompt review of ineffective-assistance claims)
- State v. Reddick, 72 Ohio St.3d 88 (1995) (ignorance of law cannot excuse untimely filing)
- Morgan v. Eads, 2004-Ohio-6110 (Ohio Sup. Ct.) (App.R. 26(B) designed to provide collateral opportunity for ineffective appellate-counsel claims)