DocketNumber: No. 88147.
Citation Numbers: 2009 Ohio 1233
Judges: PATRICIA A. BLACKMON, J.:
Filed Date: 3/18/2009
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
{¶ 2} App. R. 26(B)(2)(b) requires that Ali establish "a showing of good cause for untimely filing if the application is filed more than 90 days after *Page 3 journalization of the appellate judgment," which is subject to reopening. The Supreme Court of Ohio, with regard to the 90-day deadline as provided by App. R. 26(B)(2)(b), has recently established that:
{¶ 3} "We now reject Gumm's claim that those excuses gave him good cause to miss the 90-day deadline in App. R. 26(B). The rule was amended to include the 90-day deadline more than seven months before Gumm's appeal of right was decided by the court of appeals in February 1994, so the rule was firmly established then, just as it is today.Consistent enforcement of the rule's deadline by the appellate courts inOhio protects on the one hand the state's legitimate interest in thefinality of its judgments and ensures on the other hand that any claimsof ineffective assistance of appellate counsel are promptly examined andresolved.
{¶ 4} "Ohio and other states `may erect reasonable proceduralrequirements for triggering the right to an adjudication,' Logan v.Zimmerman Brush Co. (1982),
{¶ 5} Herein, Ali is attempting to reopen the appellate judgment that was journalized on August 16, 2007. The application for reopening was not filed until November 26, 2008, more than 90 days after journalization of the appellate judgement in State v. Ali, supra. Ali has failed to establish "a showing of good cause" for the untimely filing of his application for reopening.3
{¶ 6} Accordingly, the application for reopening is denied.
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, P.J., and KENNETH A. ROCCO, J., CONCUR