State v. Dennis
713 N.E.2d 426, 86 Ohio St. 3d 201
Opinion
We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying appellant’s application for reopening for the reasons articulated by the court of appeals. Appellant has offered no compelling justification why his application was filed beyond the time required in App.R. 26(B).
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
State v. Dennis, 713 N.E.2d 426, 86 Ohio St. 3d 201 (Ohio 1999).
713 N.E.2d 426 (State v. Dennis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
George T. Franklin, Petitioner-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Carl S. Anderson, Warden, Respondent-Appellant/cross-Appellee
434 F.3d 412 (Sixth Circuit, 2006)
Franklin v. Anderson
Sixth Circuit, 2006
State v. Baker, Unpublished Decision (1-27-2005)
2005 Ohio 565 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2005)
State v. Reed, Unpublished Decision (9-30-2003)
2003 Ohio 5441 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2003)
State v. Kaszas, Unpublished Decision (8-14-2000)
Ohio Court of Appeals, 2000
State v. Dennis
1999 Ohio 94 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1999)