Ohio Supreme Court, 1995

State v. Peeples

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided August 16, 1995 · Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Sweeney, Wright

73 Ohio St. 3d 149; 652 N.E.2d 717

Cases that cite this one

26 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

U.S. Bank v. Smith (Ohio Ct. App. 2023)
Miller v. Mellot (Ohio Ct. App. 2020)
State v. Mays (Ohio Ct. App. 2014)
State v. Townsend (Ohio Ct. App. 2013)
State v. Huber, Unpublished Decision (6-28-2004) (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)
State v. Williams, Unpublished Decision (3-31-2003) (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)
State v. Cooey (Ohio 2003)
State v. Fuller, Unpublished Decision (5-8-2002) (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)
State v. Miller, Unpublished Decision (1-28-2002) (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)
State v. Towns, Unpublished Decision (4-22-2002) (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)
State v. Stockwell, Unpublished Decision (3-26-2002) (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)
State v. Cruz, Unpublished Decision (10-4-2002) (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)
State v. Zayid, Unpublished Decision (11-14-2002) (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)
State v. Slagle, Unpublished Decision (5-29-2002) (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)
State v. Perry, Unpublished Decision (9-19-2002) (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)
State v. Stewart, Unpublished Decision (11-02-2001) (Ohio Ct. App. 2001)
State v. Sherrills, Unpublished Decision (3-6-2001) (Ohio Ct. App. 2001)
State v. Robinson, Unpublished Decision (11-5-1999) (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)
State v. Doles (Ohio 1996)
State v. Doles (Ohio 1996)
State v. Cheren (Ohio 1995)
State v. Cheren (Ohio 1995)
State v. Simmons, Unpublished Decision (8-26-1999) (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)
State v. Gillard, Unpublished Decision (4-27-1998) (Ohio Ct. App. 1998)
State v. Peeples (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.

On appeal, appellant argues that he was denied due process of law because his application for delayed reconsideration under App.R. 26(A) was considered by the court of appeals as an application to reopen pursuant to App.R. 26(B). We disagree. Since July 1, 1993, App.R. 26(B) has provided a specific remedy for claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. App.R. 26(A) coupled with App.R. 14(B) is a nonspecific remedy. Moreover, both types of applications require a showing of good cause for delay in filing. State v. Reddick (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 88, 647 N.E.2d 784. As it has been almost seven years since the decision on appellant’s direct appeal, good cause for delay was a requirement for consideration by the court under either procedure. Appellant failed to show good cause.

Moreover, we find that App.R. 26(B) makes no provision for filing successive applications to reopen. Accordingly, the court of appeals did not err or abuse its discretion when it summarily dismissed appellant’s second application to reopen.

The judgment of the court of appeals is therefore 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.