2012 Ohio 3351
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Welch, acting pro se, sought to reopen an appellate judgment in State v. Welch, 8th Dist. No. 95577, 2011-Ohio-3243.
- The underlying judgment affirmed multiple sexual-offense convictions but remanded for resentencing.
- The appellate judgment was journalized June 30, 2011.
- Welch filed his App.R. 26(B) reopening application on May 2, 2012, over 90 days later.
- The court held that the 90-day deadline is strictly enforced and Welch failed to show good cause for untimely filing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Welch’s App.R. 26(B) reopening was timely. | Welch seeks reopening under App.R. 26(B). | State argues strict 90-day deadline with no good cause shown. | Untimely; no good cause shown, so reopening denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gumm, 103 Ohio St.3d 162 (2004-Ohio-4755) (strict 90-day deadline applies to all appellants; no good cause shown)
- State v. Lamar, 102 Ohio St.3d 467 (2004-Ohio-3976) (recognizes 90-day deadline for App.R. 26(B) are enforceable)
- State v. Cooey, 73 Ohio St.3d 411 (1995-Ohio-328) (supports statutory deadliness of reopening rule)
- State v. Reddick, 72 Ohio St.3d 88 (1995-Ohio-249) (emphasizes finality and timely filing requirements)