Title: State v. Dennis

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. DENNIS, APPELLANT. 
[Cite as State v. Dennis (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 201.] 
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. 99-101 — Submitted May 17, 1999 — Decided August 11, 1999.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Summit County, No. 17156. 
 
Appellant, Adremy Dennis, was convicted of aggravated murder with death 
specifications, and of attempted murder, aggravated robbery, and possession of 
dangerous ordnance.  He was sentenced to death.  Upon appeal, the court of 
appeals affirmed the convictions and sentence.  State v. Dennis (May 8, 1996), 
Summit App. No. 17156, unreported, 1996 WL 233501.  On direct appeal as of 
right, we also affirmed his convictions and sentence on September 24, 1997.  State 
v. Dennis (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 421, 683 N.E.2d 1096. 
 
On November 23, 1998, appellant 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 on 
his direct appeal.  Appellant further asserted that his application was untimely 
because he was represented by the same attorney (of two attorneys) during his 
appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court, and 
counsel cannot be expected to raise as error his own ineffectiveness. 
 
In denying the application as untimely and without good cause shown, the 
court of appeals stated that even if it could accept appellant’s explanation as good 
cause for an untimely filing, such a rationale would not justify an indefinite 
extension of the filing deadline.  State v. Fox (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 514, 516, 700 
2 
N.E.2d 1253, 1254.  The appellate court rejected appellant’s assertion that he was 
unable, on his own, to recognize that he had a potential Murnahan claim, based on 
our holdings that neither ignorance of the law, State v. Franklin (1995), 72 Ohio 
St.3d 372, 373, 650 N.E.2d 447, 448, nor lack of access to an adequate law library, 
State v. Witlicki (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 237, 238, 658 N.E.2d 275, 276, was 
sufficient justification for an untimely filing.  The court of appeals also rejected 
appellant’s implicit argument that he has a right to counsel to assist him in filing an 
App.R. 26(B) application for reopening. 
 
This appeal followed. 
__________________ 
 
Michael T. Callahan, Summit County Prosecuting Attorney, and Paul 
Michael Maric, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
 
Lori Ann McGinnis, for appellant. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying 
appellant’s application for reopening for the reasons articulated by the court of 
appeals.  Appellant has offered no compelling justification why his application was 
filed beyond the time required in App.R. 26(B). 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.