Case Title: State v. Fox

Citation: 1998-Ohio-517

Docket Number: 19980682

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1998-11-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. FOX, APPELLANT. 
[Cite as State v. Fox (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Appellate procedure — Application for reopening appeal from judgment and 
conviction based on claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel — 
Application denied when applicant fails to establish good cause for failing 
to file his application within ninety days after journalization of the court of 
appeals’ decision affirming the conviction as required by App.R. 26(B). 
(No. 98-682 — Submitted September 15, 1998 — Decided November 10, 
1998.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Wood County, No. 90-WD-067. 
 
Appellant, Richard E. Fox, was convicted of the aggravated murder of 
Leslie Keckler and sentenced to death.  He was also sentenced to prison for 
kidnapping Keckler.  The court of appeals affirmed the convictions and sentence.  
State v. Fox (Aug. 7, 1992), Wood App. No. 90-WD-067, unreported, 1992 WL 
185671.  On direct appeal as of right, we also affirmed.  State v. Fox (1994), 69 
Ohio St.3d 183, 631 N.E.2d 124, certiorari denied, Fox v. Ohio (1994), 513 U.S. 
1060, 115 S.Ct. 671, 130 L.Ed.2d 604. 
 
We continued a stay of execution after Fox filed a petition for 
postconviction relief.  State v. Fox (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 1553, 651 N.E.2d 431.  
The trial court dismissed Fox’s petition for postconviction relief, the court of 
appeals affirmed that dismissal, State v. Fox (May 16, 1997), Wood App. No. WD-
96-031, unreported, 1997 WL 256659, and we declined to accept Fox’s appeal.  
State v. Fox (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 1506, 684 N.E.2d 89. 
 
On December 1, 1997, Fox filed an application for reopening with the court 
of appeals pursuant to App.R. 26(B) and State v. Murnahan (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 
60, 584 N.E.2d 1204, alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel before 
 
2
that court.  The court of appeals noted that Fox’s application was untimely under 
App.R. 26(B) for not having been filed within ninety days after the journalization 
of the decision of the court of appeals, which occurred on August 7, 1992. 
 
Before the court of appeals, Fox’s attorney claimed that he had “good 
cause” for the untimely filing because “trial and appellate counsel [were] the same, 
[and] counsel cannot be expected to raise his own ineffectiveness on direct 
appeal.”   The court of appeals, however, found that new counsel were 
representing Fox in 1995.  Hence, the court of appeals noted that even if it “were 
to accept [Fox’s] ‘good cause’ argument, he has still failed to show ‘good cause’ 
for the approximate three-year delay in filing this application.” 
 
Accordingly, the court of appeals denied Fox’s untimely application to 
reopen his appeal.  Fox now appeals that decision to this court. 
__________________ 
 
Alan R. Mayberry, Wood County Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
 
David H. Bodiker, Ohio Public Defender, and William S. Lazarow, Assistant 
Public Defender, for appellant. 
__________________ 
 
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. 
 
The state asserts that current counsel, David H. Bodiker, Ohio Public 
Defender, and William S. Lazarow, Assistant Public Defender, have represented 
Fox since at least June 21, 1995, when they filed the petition for postconviction 
relief in the trial court.  Fox has not denied that claim.  Thus, even if we were to 
 
3
assume good cause existed before June 21, 1995, because 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, that good cause has long since evaporated.  
Good cause can excuse the lack of a filing only while it exists, not for an indefinite 
period.  See State v. Hill (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 174, 677 N.E.2d 337; State v. 
Carter (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 642, 640 N.E.2d 811.  We specifically reject Fox’s 
claim that “once an applicant has established good cause for filing more than 
ninety days after journalization  * * *, it does not matter when the application is 
filed.” 
 
Accordingly, we agree with the court of appeals that Fox has not established 
good cause for his late filing of the application for reopening. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
 
RESNICK, J., not participating.