Title: State v. Spisak

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO                               
     The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of                      
Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27,                      
1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice                   
Thomas J. Moyer.                                                                 
     Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's                   
Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio.  Attention:  Walter S.                      
Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative                         
Assistant.  Tel.:  (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010.                       
Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome.                            
     NOTE:  Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the                  
full texts of the opinions after they have been released                         
electronically to the public.  The reader is therefore advised                   
to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West                       
Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions.                     
The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume                    
and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound                   
volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.                                            
                                                                                 
The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Spisak, Appellant.                               
[Cite as State v. Spisak (1995),       Ohio St.3d      .]                        
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 within ninety days after journalization of the court                   
     of appeals' decision affirming the conviction, as required                  
     by App.R. 26(B).                                                            
(No. 95-77 -- Submitted April 24, 1995 -- Decided August 16,                     
1995.)                                                                           
     Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, Nos.                  
47458 and 47459.                                                                 
     Appellant, Frank G. Spisak, Jr., was convicted of four                      
counts of aggravated murder, two counts of attempted murder,                     
and one count of aggravated robbery with various                                 
specifications, and sentenced to death.  The court of appeals                    
modified the conviction to three counts of aggravated murder                     
because two of the four murder convictions were allied offenses                  
of similar import, and otherwise affirmed the judgment of the                    
trial court.  State v. Spisak (July 19, 1984), Cuyahoga App.                     
Nos. 47458 and 47459, unreported.  After a remand, the court of                  
appeals reaffirmed.  State v. Spisak (July 15, 1985), Cuyahoga                   
App. Nos. 47458 and 47459, unreported.  This court affirmed                      
appellant's conviction.  State v. Spisak (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d                   
80, 521 N.E.2d 800.  On March 6, 1989, the United States                         
Supreme Court denied appellant's petition for certiorari.                        
Spisak v. Ohio (1989), 489 U.S. 1071, 109 S.Ct. 1354, 103                        
L.Ed.2d 822.                                                                     
     On March 11, 1994, appellant filed an application to                        
reopen under App. R. 26(B).  The court of appeals denied the                     
application, and this appeal followed.                                           
                                                                                 
     Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting                          
Attorney, and L. Christopher Frey, Assistant Prosecuting                         
Attorney, for appellee.                                                          
     David H. Godiker, Ohio Public Defender, Richard J. Vickers                  
and Kathleen McGarry, Assistant Public Defenders, for appellant.                 
                                                                                 
     Per Curiam.  Under App. R.26(B)(2)(b), an application for                   
reopening requires "a showing of good cause for untimely filing                  
if the application is filed more than ninety days after                          
journalization of the appellate judgment."  In State v. Reddick                  
(1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 88, 90, 647 N.E.2d 784, 786, we held that                  
an applicant who seeks to "reopen an appellate judgment                          
journalized before July 1, 1993, may not simply rely on the                      
fact that App. R. 26(B) did not exist within the ninety days                     
following journalization of the appellate judgment, but must                     
show good cause why he * * * did not attempt to invoke the                       
procedures available under former App. R. 26 and (14)(B)."                       
Appellant seeks to reopen the appellate judgment of July 19,                     
1984, but fails to show good cause for nearly ten years'                         
delay.  We agree with the court of appeals that the application                  
to reopen must be denied as untimely upon its face.                              
                                                                                 
     The judgment of the court of appeals is therefore affirmed.                 
                                 Judgment affirmed.                              
     Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney,                        
Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur.