Case Title: State v. Hancock

Citation: 2006-Ohio-658

Docket Number: 20041024

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2006-03-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State v. Hancock, 108 Ohio St.3d 194, 2006-Ohio-658.] 
 
 
THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. HANCOCK, APPELLANT. 
[Cite as State v. Hancock, 108 Ohio St.3d 194, 2006-Ohio-658.] 
Criminal law — Appellate procedure — Application to reopen direct appeal — 
App.R. 26(B) — Application denied as untimely. 
(No. 2004-1024 — Submitted January 11, 2006 — Decided March 1, 2006.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Warren County, Nos. CA2001-12-115, 
CA2001-12-116, and CA2002-01-004, 2003-Ohio-1616. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Appellant, Timothy Hancock, challenges the denial of his 
application to reopen his direct appeal pursuant to App.R. 26(B). 
{¶ 2} Hancock was convicted of the aggravated murder of Jason Wagner 
with death specifications.  After the penalty phase, the jury recommended a death 
sentence.  However, before sentencing, the trial court declared a mistrial of the 
penalty phase and — without weighing the aggravating circumstances against the 
mitigating factors — sentenced Hancock to life imprisonment without the 
possibility of parole. 
{¶ 3} On December 31, 2001, the state filed a notice of appeal and a 
motion for leave to appeal with respect to the sentence.  The Court of Appeals for 
Warren County granted leave to appeal.  On January 3, 2002, the trial court 
appointed the Ohio Public Defender to represent Hancock on appeal, and 
Hancock filed a cross-appeal.  Assistant Public Defender Joseph E. Wilhelm 
represented Hancock in the court of appeals. 
{¶ 4} The court of appeals sustained two of the state’s three assignments 
of error, overruled Hancock’s assignments on cross-appeal, vacated the life 
sentence, and remanded the case to the trial court for resentencing.  State v. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
Hancock, Warren App. Nos. CA2001-12-115, CA2001-12-116, CA2002-01-004, 
2003-Ohio-1616, 2003 WL 1689612, appeal not accepted, 99 Ohio St.3d 1513, 
2003-Ohio-3957, 792 N.E.2d 200.  The court of appeals journalized its judgment 
on March 31, 2003. 
{¶ 5} On October 22, 2003, the trial court sentenced Hancock to death 
on remand.  Assistant Public Defender Wilhelm continued to represent Hancock 
for purposes of his direct appeal to this court.  On February 1, 2006, this court 
vacated Hancock’s death sentence and remanded the cause for further 
proceedings.  State v. Hancock, 108 Ohio St.3d 57, 2006-Ohio-160, 840 N.E.2d 
1032. 
{¶ 6} In November 2003, the Public Defender assigned Assistant Public 
Defender Wendi Dotson to represent Hancock to pursue claims on postconviction 
review pursuant to R.C. 2953.21.  On March 11, 2004, represented by Dotson and 
Assistant Public Defender Rachel Troutman, Hancock filed with the court of 
appeals an application to reopen his appeal, pursuant to App.R. 26(B).  The 
application alleged that his appellate counsel before the court of appeals had 
rendered ineffective assistance by failing to raise certain issues. 
{¶ 7} On June 4, 2004, the court of appeals denied Hancock’s 
application as untimely.  Hancock appeals the denial of his application to reopen.  
We affirm. 
{¶ 8} Hancock’s App.R. 26(B) application was untimely.  App.R. 
26(B)(1) requires that an application for reopening be filed “within ninety days 
from journalization of the appellate judgment unless the applicant shows good 
cause for filing at a later time.”  The appellate judgment was journalized on 
March 31, 2003.  Thus, absent good cause for filing late, Hancock had until June 
30, 2003 to file his application. 
{¶ 9} In his application, Hancock claimed to have good cause for filing 
late because the Public Defender did not assign his current counsel to his case 
January Term, 2006 
3 
until “late November 2003.”  We disagree.  Hancock offers no reasonable 
explanation as to why the Public Defender’s office — which has been 
representing Hancock since January 3, 2002 — waited until November 2003 to 
assign counsel to work on an application that should have been filed the previous 
June.  Moreover, Hancock could have obtained other counsel or could have filed 
an application himself.  “What he could not do was ignore the rule’s filing 
deadline.”  State v. Gumm, 103 Ohio St.3d 162, 2004-Ohio-4755, 814 N.E.2d 
861, ¶ 8. 
{¶ 10} For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the court of 
appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
David H. Bodiker, Ohio Public Defender, Wendi Dotson, and Rachel 
Troutman, Assistant State Public Defenders, for appellant. 
 
Rachel Hutzel, Warren County Prosecuting Attorney, Andrew L. Sievers, 
and Mary K. Hand, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for appellee. 
______________________