Case Name: The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Wilson, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1997-10-22
Citations: 80 Ohio St. 3d 132
Docket Number: No. 97-465
Parties: The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Wilson, Appellant.
Judges: Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, Third Service
Volume: 80
Pages: 132–134

Head Matter:
The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Wilson, Appellant.
[Cite as State v. Wilson (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 132.]
(No. 97-465
Submitted August 26, 1997
Decided October 22, 1997.)
Gregory White, Lorain County Prosecuting Attorney, and Jonathan E. Rosenbaum, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
David H. Bodiker, Ohio Public Defender, and A. Ruben Lopez, 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 journalization of the appellate judgment.' " State v. Wickline (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 369, 371, 658 N.E.2d 1052, 1053. We agree with the court of appeals that Wilson has not established good cause for his failure to file the application for reopening by January 10, 1995, which was ninety days from the journalization of the decision by the court of appeals. We further note that Wilson's current attorney, who did not represent him on his direct appeal, admits that he has been involved in his ease since October 23,1995, but still does not adequately explain his failure to file a timely application for reopening, even from the date of his involvement. That counsel was "busy" with other cases does not constitute good cause for the delayed filing. See State v. Williams (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 454, 659 N.E.2d 1253.
Judgment affirmed.
Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.