Case Name: The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Fox, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1998-11-10
Citations: 83 Ohio St. 3d 514
Docket Number: No. 98-682
Parties: The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Fox, Appellant.
Judges: Moyer, C.J., Douglas, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, Third Service
Volume: 83
Pages: 514–516

Head Matter:
The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Fox, Appellant.
[Cite as State v. Fox (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 514.]
(No. 98-682
Submitted September 15, 1998
Decided November 10, 1998.)
Alan R. Mayberry, Wood County Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
David H. Bodiker, Ohio Public Defender, and William S. Lazarow, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. "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 journaliza tion of the appellate judgment.' " State v. Wickline (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 369, 371, 658 N.E.2d 1052, 1053.
The state asserts that current counsel, David H. Bodiker, Ohio Public Defender, and William S. Lazarow, Assistant Public Defender, have represented Fox since at least June 21, 1995, when they filed the petition for postconviction relief in the trial court. Fox has not denied that claim. Thus, even if we were to assume good cause existed before June 21, 1995, because counsel cannot be expected to argue their own ineffectiveness, State v. Lentz (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 527, 529-530, 639 N.E.2d 784, 785, that good cause has long since evaporated. Good cause can excuse the lack of a filing only while it exists, not for an indefinite period. See State v. Hill (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 174, 677 N.E.2d 337; State v. Carter (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 642, 640 N.E.2d 811. We specifically reject Fox's claim that "once an applicant has established good cause for filing more than ninety days after journalization , it does not matter when the application is filed."
Accordingly, we agree with the court of appeals that Fox has not established good cause for his late filing of the application for reopening.
Judgment affirmed.
Moyer, C.J., Douglas, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
Resnick, J., not participating.