From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Pierce

Supreme Court of Ohio
Feb 7, 1996
659 N.E.2d 1252 (Ohio 1996)

Summary

affirming denial of delayed application to reopen appeal prescribed under Ohio R.App. P. 26(B)

Summary of this case from Colbert v. Tambi

Opinion

No. 95-1830

Submitted October 24, 1995 —

Decided February 7, 1996.

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lake County, No. 89-L-14-170.

In 1989, appellant, Sherman Pierce, was convicted of kidnapping, rape, and felonious sexual penetration. His convictions were affirmed on appeal. State v. Pierce (Dec. 28, 1990), Lake App. No. 89-L-14-170, unreported, 1990 WL 222991. In 1995, he filed an application in the court of appeals to reopen his appeal under App.R. 26(B), alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. He alleged as good cause for not filing his application within ninety days of journalization of the judgment sought to be reopened, as required by App.R. 26(B)(2)(b), that App.R. 26(B) was not enacted until three years after his appeal was journalized, that "his brother retained counsel on his behalf," that he had difficulty in obtaining access to the record, and that he lacked legal experience. The court of appeals did not find good cause for the untimely filing and denied the application to reopen, citing, inter alia, State v. Reddick (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 88, 90-91, 647 N.E.2d 784, 786 ("applicant * * * may not simply rely on the fact that App.R. 26[B] did not exist within the ninety days following journalization" [since other procedures were previously available], and "[l]ack of effort or imagination, and ignorance of the law, * * * do not automatically establish good cause * * *"), and State v. Franklin (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 372, 650 N.E.2d 447. Appellant appealed the denial to this court.

Charles Coulson, Lake County Prosecuting Attorney, and Ariana E. Tarighati, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Sherman Pierce, pro se.


The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed for the reasons stated in its opinion.

Judgment affirmed.

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


Summaries of

State v. Pierce

Supreme Court of Ohio
Feb 7, 1996
659 N.E.2d 1252 (Ohio 1996)

affirming denial of delayed application to reopen appeal prescribed under Ohio R.App. P. 26(B)

Summary of this case from Colbert v. Tambi
Case details for

State v. Pierce

Case Details

Full title:THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. PIERCE, APPELLANT

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Feb 7, 1996

Citations

659 N.E.2d 1252 (Ohio 1996)
659 N.E.2d 1252

Citing Cases

Colbert v. Tambi

In his opposition memorandum, petitioner states that at this late juncture, nearly two years after he was…

Van Hook v. Anderson

Accordingly, an applicant who seeks to reopen an appellate judgment journalized before July 1, 1993 may not…