State v. B.C., 2022 Ohio 384

B.C. filed an App.R. 26(B) application seeking to reopen his appeal, arguing appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising a speedy-trial claim.
His convictions for rape, attempted rape, sexual battery, endangering children, and gross sexual imposition were previously affirmed by this court.
B.C. was arrested on April 7, 2019; trial began October 20, 2020 (562 calendar days later).
Ohio law provides a 270-day speedy-trial limit for felonies, with a triple-count rule for days in jail; tolling/continuances can extend this period.
The trial court docket showed numerous continuances at B.C.’s request and an express tolling of speedy-time from March 9–July 30, 2020 due to COVID-19. The court calculated 162 chargeable speedy days.
The court denied reopening: it concluded no speedy-trial violation occurred and appellate counsel’s omission was not prejudicial under Strickland.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising a speedy-trial violation on appeal	Appellate counsel was not deficient; speedy-trial time did not exceed statutory limit because many days were tolled or waived by defendant and by COVID-19 orders	Appellate counsel should have raised a speedy-trial violation; had it been raised, the conviction would have been reversed	Denied — no ineffective assistance: only 162 chargeable days, tolling/defendant continuances and statutory COVID tolling defeated the claim; no prejudice under Strickland

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (established deficient-performance and prejudice standard for ineffective-assistance claims)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio adoption and application of Strickland test)
State v. McBreen, 54 Ohio St.2d 315 (defense counsel waivers attributable to the accused)
State v. Smith, 17 Ohio St.3d 98 (presumption that licensed attorneys perform competently)
State v. Steiner, 71 Ohio App.3d 249 (when speedy-trial time begins to run)