State v. Way

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. Way

658 N.E.2d 274, 74 Ohio St. 3d 236

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided January 10, 1996·No. No. 95-854·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Under App.R. 26(B)(2)(b), an application for reopening requires “[a] showing of good cause for untimely filing if the application is filed more than ninety days after journalization of the appellate judgment[.]” Here, the appellate judgments were journalized on June 28, 1989 and January 10, 1990, and the appellant filed his appeal on February 22, 1995, over five years later. Nowhere in the record does appellant offer any good cause for his untimely filing. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the court of appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

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

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

Per Curiam.

Under App.R. 26(B)(2)(b), an application for reopening requires “[a] showing of good cause for untimely filing if the application is filed more than ninety days after journalization of the appellate judgment[.]” Here, the appellate judgments were journalized on June 28, 1989 and January 10, 1990, and the appellant filed his appeal on February 22, 1995, over five years later. Nowhere in the record does appellant offer any good cause for his untimely filing. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the court of appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

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

State v. Way, 658 N.E.2d 274, 74 Ohio St. 3d 236 (Ohio 1996).

Pincite

658 N.E.2d 274 (State v. Way) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related