State v. Williams

In his first proposition of law, appellant argues that good cause was shown for the nearly three-month delay between dismissal of the motion for delayed reconsideration and the filing of the motion for reopening because the public defender’s office was extremely busy and the second motion had to be newly researched. We reject this argument. Ten years elapsed since journalization of the appellate judgment sought to be reopened and the filing of the motion for reopening. But relief had been available during that time under former App.R. 14(B) and 26, see State v. Reddick (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d…