Appellate procedure—Application for reopening appeal from judgment and conviction based on claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel—Assistance denied when applicant fails to show good cause for failing to file his application within ninety days after journalization of the appellate judgment as required by App.R. 26(B)(2)(b).
THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. EDWARDS, APPELLANT.
[Cite as State v. Edwards,
1995-Ohio-325
.]
Appellate procedure—Application for reopening appeal from judgment and
conviction based on claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel—
Assistance denied when applicant fails to show good cause for failing to file
his application within ninety days after journalization of the appellate
judgment as required by App.R. 26(B)(2)(b).
(No. 95-654—Submitted June 21, 1995—Decided August 23, 1995.)
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 85AP-363.
__________________
{¶ 1} Appellant, Leroy Edwards, was convicted of murder and sentenced to
a term of fifteen years to life imprisonment. Appellant’s conviction and sentence
were affirmed by the court of appeals on October 17, 1985. State v. Edwards
(1985),
. We overruled
Edwards’ motion for leave to appeal and claimed appeal of right.
{¶ 2} On September 19, 1994, Edwards filed with the court of appeals an
application to reopen his appeal under App.R. 26(B), alleging ineffective assistance
of his appellate counsel. The court of appeals denied the application, finding that
appellant had failed to establish good cause for not filing his application to reopen
within ninety days from the journalization of the appellate judgment, as required
by App.R. 26(B)(2)(b). In fact, nearly nine years passed after the journalization of
the appellate judgment before appellant filed his application to reopen.
{¶ 3} The court of appeals recognized that App. R. 26(B)(2)(b) did not
become effective until July 1, 1993, and was therefore not applicable to appellant
in 1985 when the court of appeals’ affirmance of his conviction and sentence was
journalized. However, after App. R. 26(B)(2)(b) became effective it was over one
year before appellant filed his application to reopen. The court of appeals also
noted that ignorance of procedure “absent some indication that defendant could not
have discovered with reasonable effort the avenue for relief he now seeks to pursue”
does not constitute good cause for untimely filing.
{¶ 4} Appellant appeals the denial to this court.
__________________
Michael Miller, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, and Michael L.
Collyer, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Leroy Edwards, pro se.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 5} We affirm the decision of the court of appeals for the reasons stated
in its opinion.
Judgment affirmed.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and
COOK, JJ., concur.
__________________
