State v. Way

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. Way

1996 Ohio 9, 74 Ohio St. 3d 236

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 10, 1996

Docket1995-0854

StatusPublished

This text of 1996 Ohio 9 (State v. Way) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Way, 1996 Ohio 9, 74 Ohio St. 3d 236 (Ohio 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 74 Ohio St.3d 236.]

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. WAY, APPELLANT. [Cite as State v. Way, 1996-Ohio-9.] Appellate procedure—Application for reopening appeal from judgment and conviction based on claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel— Application denied when applicant fails to establish good cause for failing to file within ninety days after journalization of the court of appeals’ decision affirming the conviction, as required by App.R. 26(B). (No. 95-854—Submitted September 12, 1995—Decided January 10, 1996.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-950134. __________________ {¶ 1} Appellant, Chief T. C. Way, was convicted of aggravated robbery, felonious assault, and having a weapon while under disability in May 1988. His convictions were affirmed on appeal on June 28, 1989. State v. Way, Hamilton App. No. C-880373, unreported. Subsequently, in July 1988, appellant was convicted of aggravated robbery with specifications and theft with a prior theft conviction. His convictions were affirmed on appeal on January 10, 1990. State v. Way, Hamilton App. No. C-0880505, unreported. {¶ 2} On February 22, 1995, appellant filed a notice of appeal in the Hamilton County Court of Appeals from both appellate decisions. The court treated this as an application for reopening, and dismissed the appeal as untimely pursuant to App. R. 26(B). This appeal followed. __________________ Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Philip R. Cummings, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. Chief T. C. Way, pro se. __________________ SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Per Curiam. {¶ 3} 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

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 74 Ohio St.3d 236.]

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. WAY, APPELLANT. [Cite as State v. Way, 1996-Ohio-9.] Appellate procedure—Application for reopening appeal from judgment and conviction based on claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel— Application denied when applicant fails to establish good cause for failing to file within ninety days after journalization of the court of appeals’ decision affirming the conviction, as required by App.R. 26(B). (No. 95-854—Submitted September 12, 1995—Decided January 10, 1996.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-950134. __________________ {¶ 1} Appellant, Chief T. C. Way, was convicted of aggravated robbery, felonious assault, and having a weapon while under disability in May 1988. His convictions were affirmed on appeal on June 28, 1989. State v. Way, Hamilton App. No. C-880373, unreported. Subsequently, in July 1988, appellant was convicted of aggravated robbery with specifications and theft with a prior theft conviction. His convictions were affirmed on appeal on January 10, 1990. State v. Way, Hamilton App. No. C-0880505, unreported. {¶ 2} On February 22, 1995, appellant filed a notice of appeal in the Hamilton County Court of Appeals from both appellate decisions. The court treated this as an application for reopening, and dismissed the appeal as untimely pursuant to App. R. 26(B). This appeal followed. __________________ Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Philip R. Cummings, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. Chief T. C. Way, pro se. __________________ SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Per Curiam. {¶ 3} 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. __________________

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1996 Ohio 9, 74 Ohio St. 3d 236, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-way-ohio-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack