State v. Wilson, 684 N.E.2d 1221 (Ohio 1997). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Wilson, 684 N.E.2d 1221 (Ohio 1997). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
14 citation events (13 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Daniel Wilson v. Ted Strickland (ca6, 2009-05-28)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Daniel Wilson v. Ted Strickland (2×)
6th Cir. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Wilson, 80 Ohio St.3d 132 , 684 N.E.2d 1221, 1222 (1997); State v. Wilson, C.A.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Price
Ohio Ct. App. · 2025 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., State v. Wilson, 80 Ohio St.3d 132, 134 (1997), citing State v. Williams, 74 Ohio St.3d 454, 455 (1996) (good cause is not shown when delay in filing application to reopen is due to the busy schedule of the public defender and the need to do new research); see also State v. LaMar, 2004-Ohio- 3976, ¶ 8 (“excuse” that defendant and his attorneys were “occupied with other appeals” is not “good cause”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The State of Ohio
v.
Wilson
No. 97-465.
Ohio Supreme Court.
Oct 22, 1997.
684 N.E.2d 1221
Gregory White, Lorain County Prosecuting Attorney, and Jonathan E. Rosenbaum, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee., David H. Bodiker, Ohio Public Defender, and A. Ruben Lopez, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney.
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published
Per Curiam.

We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. “Under App.R. 26(B)(2)(b), an application for reopening requires ‘a showing of good cause for untimely filing if the application is filed more than ninety days after journalization of the appellate judgment.’ ” State v. Wickline (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 369, 371, 658 N.E.2d 1052, 1053. We agree with the court of appeals that Wilson has not established good cause for his failure to file the application for reopening by January 10, 1995, which was ninety days from the journalization of the decision by the court of appeals. We further note that Wilson’s current attorney, who did not represent him on his direct appeal, admits that he has been involved in his ease since October 23,1995, but still does not adequately explain his failure to file a timely application for reopening, even from the date of his involvement. That counsel was “busy” with other cases does not constitute good cause for the delayed filing. See State v. Williams (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 454, 659 N.E.2d 1253.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.