State v. Williams, 2011 Ohio 232

Appellant Andre Williams challenged the denial of his App.R. 26(B) application to reopen his direct appeal.
Williams was convicted of aggravated murder and sentenced to death for the 1988 Melnick killings; appellate history affirmed most convictions but reversed the underlying attempted rape finding.
This Court affirmed Williams’s convictions and sentence in 1996; subsequent postconviction proceedings followed, including a 2003 successive petition denied in 2007.
After we declined jurisdiction in 1999 and 2008, Williams, represented by Federal Public Defender counsel, sought to reopen via App.R. 26(B).
The court of appeals found Williams’s 26(B) application untimely, rejecting a good-cause for late filing.
The Supreme Court affirmed, holding the 90-day deadline was not excused by Williams’s asserted cognitive limitations or lack of counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the 26(B) reopening timely under App.R. 26(B)?	Williams: good cause excused the delay due to mental impairment and lack of counsel.	State: untimely under 26(B)(1); no good cause shown.	Untimely; no good cause.
Can lack of counsel constitute good cause for late filing?	Lack of counsel prevented timely filing and discovery of errors.	No right to counsel on reopening; counsel availability not required to show good cause.	No, lack of counsel does not establish good cause.
Does mental retardation suffice as good cause to excuse the deadline?	Williams is mentally retarded and unable to proceed pro se.	He has been judicially determined not to be mentally retarded.	No, not good cause; Williams not mentally retarded.
Are any of Williams's additional propositions of law reviewable despite untimeliness?	Issues raised would have merit if timely.	Untimeliness bars consideration of additional issues.	Untimeliness bars review of those propositions.

State v. Williams, 74 Ohio St.3d 569 (1996) (affirmed most convictions and sentence; addressed postconviction issues)
In re Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (capital punishment for mentally retarded defendants restricted)
State v. Lott, 97 Ohio St.3d 303 (2002) (procedural framework for postconviction claims)
Morgan v. Eads, 104 Ohio St.3d 142 (2004) (no right to counsel on reopening; good-ccause considerations discussed)
State v. Twyford, 106 Ohio St.3d 176 (2005) (reopening standards and timelines in App.R. 26(B))
State v. Hancock, 108 Ohio St.3d 194 (2006) (counsel and procedural rights in postconviction contexts)