State v. Williams

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the denial of Andre Williams's application to reopen his direct appeal under Ohio Appellate Rule 26(B). The court held that the application, filed more than ten years after the appellate judgment, was untimely and that Williams had not shown good cause for the delay.

Holdings

1. An application to reopen a direct appeal must be filed within ninety days after journalization of the appellate judgment unless the applicant demonstrates good cause for the delay; Williams's application, filed more than ten years late, was untimely.
2. Williams's asserted intellectual disability did not establish good cause for his late filing because a prior judicial determination had found that he was not intellectually disabled.
3. The absence of counsel did not constitute good cause for Williams's untimely App.R. 26(B) application because there is no right to counsel for an application to reopen and postconviction counsel could have raised the alleged appellate errors.
4. Because the application to reopen was untimely, the court could not consider Williams's three additional propositions of law.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Williams's application to reopen his direct appeal under App.R. 26(B) was timely filed or whether he established good cause for filing more than ninety days after journalization of the appellate judgment.
2. Whether Williams's alleged intellectual disability, lack of counsel, or discovery of appellate errors constituted good cause for his untimely App.R. 26(B) application.
3. Whether the court could reach Williams's additional propositions of law despite the application's untimeliness.

Disposition

affirmed