Title: State v. Farrow

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State v. Farrow, 115 Ohio St.3d 205, 2007-Ohio-4792.] 
 
 
THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. FARROW, APPELLANT. 
[Cite as State v. Farrow, 115 Ohio St.3d 205, 2007-Ohio-4792.] 
Appellate procedure—App.R. 26(B)—Application to reopen appeal denied. 
(No. 2007-0988 — Submitted September 12, 2007 — Decided 
September 20, 2007.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 36833. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
Appellant, Dwain Farrow, challenges the denial of his application 
to reopen his direct appeal under App.R. 26(B). 
{¶2} 
Farrow was tried and convicted in Cuyahoga County for the 1975 
murder of William Prochazka.  The court of appeals affirmed his conviction and 
sentence in 1978.  State v. Farrow (Feb. 9, 1978), Cuyahoga App. No. 36833, 
1978 WL 217742. 
{¶3} 
On March 30, 2007, Farrow 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 April 2007, citing Farrow’s failure to 
comply with the 90-day filing deadline in App.R. 26(B).  The court of appeals 
also held that Farrow had not shown good cause for his failure to file his 
application within that time limit. 
{¶4} 
Farrow has now filed a timely appeal to this court. 
{¶5} 
We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.  Farrow 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 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
good cause for filing at a later time.”  Farrow waited 29 years before filing his 
application. 
{¶6} 
He argues that he was unaware of his appellate rights and that he 
did not know that his conviction and sentence were affirmed by the court of 
appeals in 1978.  But Farrow 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 Farrow offers no sound reason why he–unlike so many other 
Ohio criminal defendants–could not comply with that fundamental aspect of the 
rule. 
{¶7} 
“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 
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.  After 
so many years, the equities weigh strongly in favor of the state of Ohio and its 
legitimate interest in the finality of the judgment.  We see nothing in Farrow’s 
application or in his brief that might reasonably be described as good cause for his 
29-year delay in filing the application, and we therefore conclude that the court of 
appeals properly declined to reach the merits of Farrow’s claim of ineffective 
assistance of counsel. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
January Term, 2007 
3 
 
William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Diane 
Smilanick, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
 
Paul Mancino Jr., for appellant. 
______________________