State v. Wilcox, 2013 Ohio 2895

Wilcox, convicted of kidnapping with firearm specification, domestic violence, weapon under disability, and aggravated menacing, sought to reopen this court’s judgment under App.R. 26(B).
The application targeted the prior 2011 decision State v. Wilcox, 8th Dist. No. 96079, 2011-Ohio-5388.
The 2013 application was filed about 19 months after journalization of the 2011 decision, well beyond the 90-day deadline.
Wilcox argued good cause existed because his family retained an attorney post-appeal to file the application, but the attorney did not file and relationships terminated by January 2013.
Citing precedent, the court held that reliance on counsel does not constitute good cause for untimely filing.
The court denied the application to reopen State v. Wilcox.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the App.R. 26(B) reopening application timely?	Wilcox contends good cause exists for late filing.	State argues strict enforcement of the 90-day deadline.	Untimely; applications must be filed within 90 days.
Does reliance on prior appellate counsel establish good cause?	Misplaced reliance on counsel delayed filing.	Reliance on counsel does not constitute good cause.	No good cause; cannot excuse untimely filing.
May good cause be based on post-appeal attorney activity or termination?	Attorney retained after appeal should have filed.	Post-appeal actions by counsel do not create good cause.	Not established; 90-day deadline remains strict.

State v. LaMar, 102 Ohio St.3d 467 (Ohio Supreme Court 2004) (strict 90-day deadline; lack of effort not enough)
State v. Gumm, 103 Ohio St.3d 162 (Ohio Supreme Court 2004) (continued representation does not excuse lateness)