State v. Ballew, 729 N.E.2d 753 (Ohio 2000). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Ballew, 729 N.E.2d 753 (Ohio 2000). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
10 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: George T. Franklin, Petitioner-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Carl S. Anderson, Warden, Respondent-Appellant/cross-Appellee (ca6, 2006-01-09)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
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).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The State of Ohio
v.
Ballew
No. 99-2146.
Ohio Supreme Court.
Jun 21, 2000.
729 N.E.2d 753
Michael K. Allen, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Ronald W. Springman, Jr., Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee., David J. Graeff, for appellant.
Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney.
Cited by 6 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. Ballew’s application to reopen his appeal was, as he concedes, untimely.

Ballew asserts, however, that he had “good cause” because the same counsel, Robert R. Hastings, Jr., represented him in the original appeal to the court of appeals and this court. Counsel cannot be expected to argue his or her own ineffectiveness. State v. Lentz (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 527, 529-530, 639 N.E.2d 784, 785. However, different counsel, Gary W. Crim, began to represent Ballew in connection with this case in October 1996. Crim also represented Ballew before the court of appeals and this court in his 1998 appeal of the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. See State v. Ballew (Mar. 6, 1998), Hamilton App. No. C-970313, unreported, 1998 WL 95397. Ballew has not explained or justified the delay from October 1996 until June 1999 in filing his App.R. 26(B) application. Thus, the court of appeals correctly rejected Ballew’s application as untimely.

Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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