Case Title: State v. Brown

Citation: 1996-Ohio-44

Docket Number: 19952122

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1996-02-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Brown, Appellant. 
1 
[Cite as State v. Brown (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 failure to file motion 
6 
within ninety days from journalization of the appellate 
7 
judgment, as required by App.R. 26(B). 
8 
 
(No. 95-2122--Submitted December 12, 1995--Decided February 14, 
9 
1996.) 
10 
 
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County, No. CA 
11 
8175. 
12 
 
Appellant, Ronald Perry Brown, was convicted of rape and gross 
13 
sexual imposition.  His convictions and sentences were affirmed on appeal.  
14 
State v. Brown (Apr. 13, 1984), Montgomery App. No. CA 8175, 
15 
unreported. 
16 
 
He filed an application for reopening his appeal on July 24, 1995, 
17 
alleging as good cause for failure to file the application within ninety days 
18 
of journalization of the judgment sought to be reopened, as required by 
19 
 
2
App.R. 26(B), that a right to reopen was not announced before 1992, and 
1 
after 1992, he did not wish to jeopardize his first chance for parole by 
2 
having a case pending.  The court of appeals rejected this reasoning, and 
3 
appellant appealed to this court. 
4 
 
Mathias H. Heck, Jr., Montgomery County Prosecuting Attorney, and 
5 
Carley J. Ingram, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
6 
 
Ronald Perry Brown, pro se. 
7 
 
Per Curiam.  The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.  In 
8 
this court, appellant makes no attempt to establish good cause, but instead 
9 
argues the questions he wanted the court of appeals to hear, but which it did 
10 
not hear.  The application was rejected for failure to state a good cause for 
11 
late filing.  That is the issue before this court.  Since appellant does not even 
12 
address the issue, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed. 
13 
Judgment affirmed 
14 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER 
15 
and COOK, JJ., concur. 
16 
 
17