State v. Witlicki - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

1
The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Witlicki, Appellant.
2
[Cite as State v. Witlicki (1996), _____ Ohio St.3d _____.]
3
Appellate procedure -- Application for reopening appeal from
4
judgment and conviction based on claim of ineffective
5
assistance of appellate counsel -- Application denied when
6
applicant fails to establish good cause for failing to file within
7
ninety days after journalization of the court of appeals'
8
decision affirming the conviction, as required by App.R. 26(B).
9

(No. 95-1246--Submitted October 10, 1995--Decided January 10,
10
1996.)
11
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Lake County, No. 8-245.
12

Appellant, Thomas Witlicki, was convicted of two counts of rape, one
13
count of gross sexual imposition, and one count of aggravated burglary.
14
The appellate court affirmed the conviction. State v. Witlicki (June 21,
15
1982), Lake App. No. 8-245, unreported.
16

Over twelve years later, on November 3, 1994, appellant filed an
17
application to reopen pursuant to App. R. 26(B). The appeals court denied
18
the application as untimely without good cause shown. According to the
19
court of appeals, appellant's claim that he was unable to discover the trial
20
errors because the trial was complex, because he has a limited education,

1
and because the library at appellant's correctional institution lacked
2
adequate resources was not good cause for the untimely filing of appellant's
3
application to reopen. This appeal followed.
4

Charles E. Coulson, Lake County Prosecuting Attorney, Ariana E.
5
Tarighati and Julie E. Mitrovich, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for
6
appellee.
7

Thomas Witlicki, pro se.
8

Per Curiam. We affirm the decision of the court of appeals for the
9
reasons stated in its opinion.
10
Judgment affirmed.
11

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER
12
and COOK, JJ., concur.
13

2