Case Name: The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Spisak, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1995-08-16
Citations: 73 Ohio St. 3d 151
Docket Number: No. 95-77
Parties: The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Spisak, Appellant.
Judges: Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, Third Service
Volume: 73
Pages: 151–152

Head Matter:
The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Spisak, Appellant.
[Cite as State v. Spisak (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 151.]
(No. 95-77
Submitted April 24, 1995
Decided August 16, 1995.)
Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and L. Christopher Frey, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
David H. Bodiker, Ohio Public Defender, Richard J. Vickers and Kathleen McGarry, Assistant Public Defenders, for appellant.

Opinion:
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.