State v. Bender

Summary

The Seventh District Court of Appeals of Ohio denied William Herbert Bender II's application to reopen his criminal appeal under Ohio Appellate Rule 26(B). The court held that the application was untimely and that the appellant failed to establish good cause for filing more than 90 days after journalization of the appellate judgment. The court also explained that ignorance of the rule and waiting for Ohio Supreme Court proceedings to conclude did not constitute good cause.

Holdings

1. An App.R. 26(B) application filed outside the ninety-day period is untimely, and the applicant must establish good cause for the delay.
2. Lack of legal training and ignorance of the law, including ignorance of App.R. 26(B), do not constitute good cause for an untimely application to reopen.
3. The pendency or anticipated resolution of direct-review or habeas proceedings in the Ohio Supreme Court does not constitute good cause for delaying an App.R. 26(B) application.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Bender established good cause for filing his App.R. 26(B) application more than ninety days after journalization of the appellate judgment.
2. Whether ignorance of App.R. 26(B), lack of legal training, the need to compile documentation, and pending Ohio Supreme Court proceedings constituted good cause for the untimely application.

Disposition

denied