State v. Winstead, 95-816
| Citation | 74 Ohio St.3d 277,658 N.E.2d 722 |
| Decision Date | 10 January 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-816,95-816 |
| Parties | The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. WINSTEAD, Appellant. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Ohio |
Appellant, Donald Winstead, was convicted of aggravated burglary and theft, with prior offense specifications. The conviction was affirmed on appeal. State v. Winstead (Sept. 28, 1994), Hamilton App. No. C-940046, unreported, 1994 WL 525535. We dismissed the appeal on March 1, 1995. State v. Winstead (1995), 71 Ohio St.3d 1477, 645 N.E.2d 1257. It is undisputed appellant filed an application to reopen his appeal pursuant to App.R. 26(B) on December 28, 1994, claiming ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. He alleges he based his claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel on appellate counsel's failure to raise the issue of prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments. On January 6, 1995, appellant filed a motion to rule the App.R. 26(B) application timely filed, or that good cause for a day's delay in timely filing was established, because the overnight courier that appellant's counsel had used failed to deliver the application before the deadline for filing expired. On April 6, 1995, the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County ruled that "good cause" had not been established and denied the application for reopening. Appellant then appealed to this court.
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney and Philip R. Cummings, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
David H. Bodiker, Ohio Public Defender and Hyrum J. Mackay, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
The decision of the court of appeals is affirmed. We agree that a courier's delay in delivery is not "good cause" for accepting an App.R. 26(B) application for reopening that is untimely filed. Moreover, there is no denial of due process or equal protection in applying to this appellant a rule applicable to all appellants.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Richey v. Mitchell
...minor of violations caused by circumstances beyond the control of both the litigant and his lawyer. See, e.g., State v. Winstead, 74 Ohio St.3d 277, 658 N.E.2d 722 (1996) (finding no good cause for a filing that was one day late, and that had resulted "because the overnight courier that app......
-
Maynard v. Oppy
...Ohio St.3d 205, 206, 2007-Ohio-4792, ¶ 6. The 90-day requirement is "applicable to all appellants [.]" Id., quoting State v. Winstead, 74 Ohio St.3d 277, 278 (1996). "Consistent enforcement of the rule's deadline by the appellate courts in Ohio protects on the one hand the state's legitimat......
-
Lytle v. Warden
...to seek timely relief under App.R. 26(B)."); State v. LaMar, 102 Ohio St.3d 467, 2004-Ohio-3976, ¶ 9, quoting State v. Winstead, 74 Ohio St.3d 277, 278 (1996) ("The 90-day requirement in [App.R. 26(B)] is 'applicable to all appellants.' "); State v. Richardson, 8th Dist. No. 87886, 2008-Ohi......
-
Copeland v. Morgan
...filing of applications to reopen. * * * The 90-day requirement in the rule is “applicable to all appellants,” State v. Winstead (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 277, 278, 658 N.E.2d 722, and applicant] offers no sound reason why he- unlike so many other Ohio criminal defendants-could not comply with t......