Title: State v. Hoffner

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State v. Hoffner, 112 Ohio St.3d 467, 2007-Ohio-376.] 
 
 
THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. HOFFNER, APPELLANT. 
[Cite as State v. Hoffner, 112 Ohio St.3d 467, 2007-Ohio-376.] 
Criminal law — Postconviction procedure — App.R. 26(B) — Defendant’s lack of 
legal training does not excuse failure to comply with 90-day deadline to 
file application to reopen appeal — Judgment affirmed. 
(No. 2006-1780 — Submitted January 10, 2007 — Decided February 14, 2007.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lucas County, No. L-95-181. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Appellant, Timothy L. Hoffner, challenges the denial of his 
application to reopen his direct appeal under App.R. 26(B). 
{¶ 2} Hoffner was tried and convicted in Lucas County for the 1993 
kidnapping and murder of Christopher Hammer.  Hoffner was sentenced to death 
for the murder, and the court of appeals affirmed his convictions and the death 
sentence in 2001.  State v. Hoffner (Mar. 23, 2001), 6th Dist. No. L-95-181, 2001 
WL 279768.  We then affirmed the appellate court’s judgment.  State v. Hoffner, 
102 Ohio St.3d 358, 2004-Ohio-3430, 811 N.E.2d 48. 
{¶ 3} On June 6, 2006, Hoffner filed an application in the court of 
appeals under App.R. 26(B) to reopen his appeal in that court, alleging that he did 
not receive the effective assistance of appellate counsel in his direct appeal.  The 
court of appeals denied the application in August 2006, citing Hoffner’s failure to 
comply with the 90-day filing deadline in App.R. 26(B).  The court of appeals 
also found that Hoffner had not shown good cause for his failure to file his 
application within the time limit set by the rule. 
{¶ 4} Hoffner has now filed a timely appeal. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶ 5} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.  Hoffner did not 
comply with App.R. 26(B)(1), which states that “[a]n application for reopening 
shall be filed in the court of appeals where the appeal was decided within ninety 
days from journalization of the appellate judgment unless the applicant shows 
good cause for filing at a later time.”  Hoffner waited more than five years before 
filing his application. 
{¶ 6} He argues that the rule is unconstitutional, although he offers just 
one page of argument on the point.  As we have explained, an App.R. 26(B) 
application for reopening is a “collateral postconviction remedy,” and the state 
“has no constitutional obligation * * * to provide counsel to those defendants who 
file applications under that rule.”  Morgan v. Eads, 104 Ohio St.3d 142, 2004-
Ohio-6110, 818 N.E.2d 1157, ¶ 22, 25.  We therefore reject Hoffner’s claim that 
the rule is unconstitutional or that his inability to secure further appellate 
representation in the court of appeals gave him good cause to miss the 90-day 
deadline in App.R. 26(B) after the court of appeals issued its decision in March 
2001. 
{¶ 7} And Hoffner himself cannot rely on his own alleged lack of legal 
training to excuse his failure to comply with the deadline.  “Lack of effort or 
imagination, and ignorance of the law * * * do not automatically establish good 
cause for failure to seek timely relief” under App.R. 26(B).  State v. Reddick 
(1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 88, 91, 647 N.E.2d 784.  The 90-day requirement in the 
rule is “applicable to all appellants,” State v. Winstead (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 277, 
278, 658 N.E.2d 722, and Hoffner offers no sound reason why he — unlike so 
many other Ohio criminal defendants — could not comply with that fundamental 
aspect of the rule. 
{¶ 8} “Consistent enforcement of the rule’s deadline by the appellate 
courts in Ohio protects on the one hand the state’s legitimate interest in the 
finality of its judgments and ensures on the other hand that any claims of 
January Term, 2007 
3 
ineffective assistance of appellate counsel are promptly examined and resolved.”  
State v. Gumm, 103 Ohio St.3d 162, 2004-Ohio-4755, 814 N.E.2d 861, ¶ 7. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and Eric A. Baum, 
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
 
David L. Doughten, for appellant. 
______________________