Case Title: State v. Oden

Citation: 1996-Ohio-11

Docket Number: 19951052

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1996-01-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Oden, Appellant. 
1 
[Cite as State v. Oden (1996), _____ Ohio St.3d _____.] 
2 
Appellate procedure -- Application for reopening appeal from 
3 
judgment and conviction based on claim of ineffective 
4 
assistance of appellate counsel -- Application denied when 
5 
applicant fails to establish good cause for failing to file his 
6 
application within ninety days after journalization of the court 
7 
of appeals’ decision affirming the conviction, as required by 
8 
App.R. 26(B). 
9 
 
(No. 95-1052--Submitted September 12, 1995--Decided January 10, 
10 
1996.) 
11 
 
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Summit County, No. 13869. 
12 
 
Appellant, Master Chaunce’ Oden, was convicted of aggravated 
13 
burglary with a prior aggravated felony specification and sentenced 
14 
accordingly.  The Court of Appeals for Summit County affirmed the 
15 
conviction.  State v. Oden (May 3, 1989), Summit App. No. 13869, 
16 
unreported. 
17 
 
On March 7, 1994, appellant filed an application for reopening 
18 
pursuant to App. R. 26(B), alleging as good cause for failure to file within 
19 
ninety days after journalization of the appellate judgment as required by 
20 
 
2
App.R. 26(B)(2)(b), that he was pursuing various appeals and collateral 
1 
attacks on the judgment instead, and that the riots at the Southern Ohio 
2 
Correctional Institute also impeded his ability to file a timely application.  
3 
The court of appeals denied the application, finding that appellant failed to 
4 
file the application in a timely manner, rejecting the stated reasons for good 
5 
cause.  This appeal followed. 
6 
 
Maureen O’Connor, Summit County Prosecuting Attorney, and 
7 
William D. Wellemeyer, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
8 
 
Master Chaunce’ Oden, pro se. 
9 
 
Per Curiam.  We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals for the 
10 
reasons stated in its judgment entry. 
11 
Judgment affirmed. 
12 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER 
13 
and COOK, JJ., concur. 
14 
 
15