Ohio Supreme Court, 1995

State v. Franklin

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided June 28, 1995 · Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Sweeney, Wright

72 Ohio St. 3d 372; 650 N.E.2d 447

Cases that cite this one

21 later published cases cite this decision.

State v. Rosemond (Ohio Ct. App. 2021)
State v. Thompson (Ohio Ct. App. 2021)
State v. Sims (Ohio Ct. App. 2021)
State v. Wachee (Ohio Ct. App. 2021)
State v. Perry, 90497 (5-12-2009) (Ohio Ct. App. 2009)
State v. Block, 87488 (4-20-2007) (Ohio Ct. App. 2007)
Thomas D. Monzo v. Ron Edwards, Warden (6th Cir. 2002)
State v. Mays, Unpublished Decision (3-20-2001) (Ohio Ct. App. 2001)
State v. Towns, Unpublished Decision (5-4-2000) (Ohio Ct. App. 2000)
State v. Qunnie, Unpublished Decision (12-21-2000) (Ohio Ct. App. 2000)
State v. Johnson, Unpublished Decision (12-13-2000) (Ohio Ct. App. 2000)
State v. Johnson, Unpublished Decision (5-27-1999) (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)
State v. Dennis (Ohio 1999)
State v. Pierce (Ohio 1996)
Fox v. Warden, Belmont Correctional Institution (District Court, S.D. Ohio 2020)
State v. Wright, 90439 (2-18-2009) (Ohio Ct. App. 2009)
State v. Jackson, Unpublished Decision (10-9-2007) (Ohio Ct. App. 2007)
State v. Street, Unpublished Decision (1-4-2006) (Ohio Ct. App. 2006)
State v. Wolfe, Unpublished Decision (12-21-2000) (Ohio Ct. App. 2000)
State v. Franklin, Unpublished Decision (9-28-1999) (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)
State v. Franklin (Ohio 1995)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

On appeal, appellant argues, inter alia, that he did argue good cause for untimely filing in his application to reopen — that he was ignorant of the law and did not know how to proceed. However, in State v. Reddick (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 88, 91, 647 N.E.2d 784, 786, we held that ignorance of the law is not a sufficient justification for untimely filing.

Appellant also argues that he complied with App.R. 26(B)(2)(d) by attaching an affidavit swearing to the truth of the allegations of his application. However, such an affidavit falls short of the particularity required by the rule. Moreover, as we suggested in State v. Lechner (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 374, 375, 650 N.E.2d 449, 449-450, one reason for failure to file the required sworn statement may be that many of the claims were in fact considered by an appellate court, thereby precluding compliance with App.R. 26(B)(2)(c) and (d). Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.