State v. Davis, 714 N.E.2d 384 (Ohio 1999). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Davis, 714 N.E.2d 384 (Ohio 1999). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, last quoted 2008 · 2 courts · …counsel cannot be expected to argue their own ineffectiveness. at p. 214 ✓ Topic ↗
65 citation events (59 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Garcia-Toro (ohioctapp, 2026-05-08)
Treatment trajectory · 1999 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1999 2012 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) State v. Garcia-Toro
Ohio Ct. App. · 2026 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
to be sure . . . 'counsel cannot be expected to argue their own ineffectiveness.' other attorneys - or the applicant himself - could have pursued the application, however.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Davis v. Warden Chillicothe Correctional Institution
S.D. Ohio · 2021 · confidence medium
Davis VIII, 86 Ohio St. 3d at 213-14, citing Ohio App.R. 26(B).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Sullivan
Ohio Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
Appellant further avers he was prejudiced by appellate counsel’s failure to turn over the transcripts in a timely manner. {¶ 11} However, appellant has not indicated when he first requested the transcripts from counsel (i.e., did he request them before or after the 90-day deadline had passed) or when he actually received the transcripts. " 'Good cause can excuse the lack of a filing only while it exists, not for an indefinite period. ' " State v. Davis, 86 Ohio St.3d 212, 214 (1999), quoting State v. Fox, 83 Ohio St.3d 514, 516 (1998).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Tolliver v. Sheets
S.D. Ohio · 2008 · confidence medium
To be sure, as Gumm contends, “counsel cannot be expected to argue their own ineffectiveness.” State v. Davis (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 212, 214 [, 714 N.E.2d 384 ] * * *.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) George T. Franklin, Petitioner-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Carl S. Anderson, Warden, Respondent-Appellant/cross-Appellee (2×)
6th Cir. · 2006 · confidence medium
See, e.g., State v. Mason, 90 Ohio St.3d 66 , 734 N.E.2d 822, 822-23 (2000); State v. Dunlap, 89 Ohio St.3d 277 , 730 N.E.2d 985, 986 (2000); State v. Ballew, 89 Ohio St.3d 204 , 729 N.E.2d 753, 754-55 (2000); State v. Davis, 86 Ohio St.3d 212 , 714 N.E.2d 384, 385-86 (1999); State v. Dennis, 86 Ohio St.3d 201 , 713 N.E.2d 426, 427 (1999); State v. Fox, 83 Ohio St.3d 514 , 700 N.E.2d 1253, 1254 (1998); State v. Hill, 78 Ohio St.3d 174 , 677 N.E.2d 337, 338 (1997); State v. Whalen, 74 Ohio St.3d 633 , 660 N.E.2d 1174, 1175 (1996); State v. Reddick, 72 Ohio St.3d 88 , 647 N.E.2d 784, 786 (1995).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Franklin v. Anderson
6th Cir. · 2006 · confidence medium
See, e.g., State v. Mason, 734 N.E.2d 822, 822-23 (Ohio 2000); State v. Dunlap, 730 N.E.2d 985, 986 (Ohio 2000); State v. Ballew, 729 N.E.2d 753, 754-55 (Ohio 2000); State v. Davis, 714 N.E.2d 384, 385-86 (Ohio 1999); Nos. 03-3636/3697 Franklin v. Anderson Page 6 State v. Dennis, 713 N.E.2d 426, 427 (Ohio 1999); State v. Fox, 700 N.E.2d 1253, 1254 (Ohio 1998); State v. Hill, 677 N.E.2d 337, 338 (Ohio 1997); State v. Whalen, 660 N.E.2d 1174, 1175 (Ohio 1996); State v. Reddick, 647 N.E.2d 784, 786 (Ohio 1995).
cited Cited "see, e.g." State v. Haynik
Ohio Ct. App. · 2025 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also State v. Davis, 86 Ohio St.3d 212 (1999). {¶ 5} Almost two years have elapsed since we rendered our appellate opinion that affirmed Haynik’s conviction and sentence for the offense of rape.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Kaszas, Unpublished Decision (8-14-2000) (2×)
Ohio Ct. App. · 2000 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
State v. Reddick (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 88 , 90-91 , 647 N.E.2d 784 ; see, e.g., State v. Davis (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 212 , 714 N.E.2d 384 ; State v. Dennis (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 201 , 713 N.E.2d 426 ; State v. Fox (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 514 , 700 N.E.2d 1253 ; State v. Winstead (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 277 , 658 N.E.2d 722 ; State v. Witlicki (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 237 , 658 N.E.2d 275 ; State v. Tucker (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 152 , 652 N.E.2d 152 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The State of Ohio
v.
Davis
No. 99-252.
Ohio Supreme Court.
Aug 25, 1999.
714 N.E.2d 384
John F. Holcomb, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, and Daniel G. Eichel, First Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee., John S. Marshall; David H. Bodiker, Ohio Public Defender, and Lori Leon, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney.
Cited by 35 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 journaliza[*214] tion of the appellate judgment.’ ” State v. Wickline (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 369, 371, 658 N.E.2d 1052, 1053.

However, as the court of appeals noted, “[njeither the [Sjupreme [Cjourt’s decision in State v. Murnahan, * * * nor App.R. 26(B) [was] available to allow” the filing of such applications for reopening at the time of the court of appeals decisions on May 27,1986 and October 29,1990.

Nonetheless, as we have held earlier, “an applicant who seeks to reopen an appellate judgment journalized before July 1, 1993 may not simply rely on the fact that App.R. 26(B) did not exist within the ninety days following journalization of the appellate judgment, but must show good cause why he or she did not attempt to invoke the procedures available under former App.R. 26 and 14(B).” State v. Reddick (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 88, 90, 647 N.E.2d 784, 786.

In this case, Davis filed his applications to reopen his appeal in August 1998, five years after App.R. 26(B) became effective on July 1, 1993, six years after we decided Mumahan, almost eight years after the second court of appeals decision affirming his death sentence, and twelve years after the court of appeals first affirmed his death sentence. Thus, no question exists that the applications were untimely.

We agree with the court of appeals that Davis has failed to establish good cause for failing to file timely applications under App.R. 26(B) and Murnahan. Admittedly, counsel cannot be expected to argue their own ineffectiveness. State v. Lentz (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 527, 529-530, 639 N.E.2d 784, 785. However, Davis has gone through several different sets of appellate lawyers since his initial appeal in 1986. Moreover, Lori Leon has represented him since at least March 1997, and Davis has not explained his failure to file between March 1997 and August 1998. Even if we were to find good cause for earlier failures to file, any such good cause “has long since evaporated. Good cause can excuse the lack of a filing only while it exists, not for an indefinite period.” State v. Fox (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 514, 516, 700 N.E.2d 1253, 1254. See, also, State v. Hill (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 174, 677 N.E.2d 337.

Judgment affirmed.

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