State v. Crawford
Citations
- 2025 Ohio 2591
Syllabus
App.R. 26(B) application to reopen, ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, 90-day limitation period, untimely application, reliance on counsel, failure to obtain necessary records, and manifest injustice. The court denied an App.R. 26(B) application to reopen as untimely. The failure of counsel to timely inform the applicant of the court's decision does not state good cause for untimely filing. Similarly, difficulties in obtaining necessary records, either from appellate counsel or the clerk, do not state good cause. Claims on manifest injustice do not state good cause.
Judges: Klatt
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
1 case in this archive cites this case.
Cites
7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- State v. MurnahanOhio Supreme Court· 1992-02-19· cited 753×
- In re Cases Held for State v. Hacker and State v. SimmonsOhio Supreme Court· 2023-10-26· cited 9×
- State v. PruittOhio Court of Appeals· 2012-01-11· cited 7×
- State v. HendersonOhio Court of Appeals· 2013-06-19· cited 6×
- State v. CrawfordOhio Court of Appeals· 2022-08-04· cited 3×
- State v. JarrettOhio Court of Appeals· 2014-02-11· cited 1×
- State v. HarrellOhio Court of Appeals· 2024-02-28· cited 1×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.