Case ID: ohio-st-3d_74/html/0277-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Winstead, Appellant.
    [Cite as State v. Winstead (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 277.]
    (No. 95-816
    Submitted September 12, 1995
    Decided January 10, 1996.)
    
      
      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.
   Per Curiam.

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.

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