History
  • No items yet
midpage
State v. Landrum
87 Ohio St. 3d 315
Ohio
1999
Check Treatment
Per Curiam.

We agree with the court of appeals that Landrum’s application to reopen his appeal was untimely under App.R. 26(B) and that Landrum failed to show “good cause” for the untimely filing. See, also, State v. Fox (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 514, 700 N.E.2d 1253; State v. Wickline (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 369, 371, 658 N.E.2d 1052, 1053.

Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Landrum
Court Name: Ohio Supreme Court
Date Published: Dec 22, 1999
Citation: 87 Ohio St. 3d 315
Docket Number: No. 99-994
Court Abbreviation: Ohio
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.