State v. Way - 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. Way, Appellant.
2
[Cite as State v. Way (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. 95-854--Submitted September 12, 1995--Decided January 10,
10
1996.)
11
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-
12
950134.
13

Appellant, Chief T. C. Way, was convicted of aggravated robbery,
14
felonious assault, and having a weapon while under disability in May 1988.
15
His convictions were affirmed on appeal on June 28, 1989. State v. Way,
16
Hamilton App. No. C-880373, unreported. Subsequently, in July 1988,
17
appellant was convicted of aggravated robbery with specifications and theft
18
with a prior theft conviction. His convictions were affirmed on appeal on
19
January 10, 1990. State v. Way, Hamilton App. No. C-0880505, unreported.

1

On February 22, 1995, appellant filed a notice of appeal in the
2
Hamilton County Court of Appeals from both appellate decisions. The
3
court treated this as an application for reopening, and dismissed the appeal
4
as untimely pursuant to App. R. 26(B). This appeal followed.
5

Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Philip
6
R. Cummings, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
7

Chief T. C. Way, pro se.
8

Per Curiam. Under App. R. 26(B)(2)(b), an application for reopening
9
requires "a showing of good cause for untimely filing if the application is
10
filed more than ninety days after journalization of the appellate judgment[.]"
11
Here, the appellate judgments were journalized on June 28, 1989 and
12
January 10, 1990, and the appellant filed his appeal on February 22, 1995,
13
over five years later. Nowhere in the record does appellant offer any good
14
cause for his untimely filing. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the
15
court of appeals.
16
Judgment affirmed.
17

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER
18
and COOK, JJ., concur.

2