Legal Opinion

State v. Fox

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided November 10, 1998No. 98-682PublishedCited by 37 opinions

1Per 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*516tion 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…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State v. LentzOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  2. State v. WicklineOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  3. State v. HillOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  4. State v. CarterOhio Supreme Court · 1994

3Cited by37 opinions

  1. State v. GummOhio Supreme Court · 2004
  2. State v. LaMarOhio Supreme Court · 2004
  3. George T. Franklin, Petitioner-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Carl S. Anderson, Warden, Respondent-Appellant/cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2006
  4. State v. DavisOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  5. Colbert v. TambiDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 2007

32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API