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).
.]
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.
__________________
2
