State v. Landrum

720 N.E.2d 524, 87 Ohio St. 3d 315
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided December 22, 1999·No. No. 99-994·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

State v. Landrum, 720 N.E.2d 524, 87 Ohio St. 3d 315 (Ohio 1999).

720 N.E.2d 524 (State v. Landrum) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Landrum
2018 Ohio 1280 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2018)
Landrum v. Mitchell
625 F.3d 905 (Sixth Circuit, 2010)
Landrum v. Anderson
185 F. Supp. 2d 868 (S.D. Ohio, 2002)
State v. Landrum
1999 Ohio 71 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1999)