State v. Barnes, 2026-Ohio-2750

Barnes pleaded guilty to attempted breaking and entering and petty theft arising from the theft of M.S.’s property, and the trial court imposed sentence without addressing restitution. 1
M.S. filed a direct appeal seeking restitution under Marsy’s Law but later voluntarily dismissed that appeal. 2
After uncertainty in the Eighth District over how victims could enforce Marsy’s Law rights, M.S. pursued mandamus relief and this court later decided Brasher recognizing a victim’s direct appeal from a restitution denial. 3
Years later, M.S. sought a delayed appeal from the original sentencing entry, and the Eighth District denied leave because App.R. 5 limits delayed appeals to defendants. 4
This court accepted review of M.S.’s challenge to the denial of delayed-appeal leave, with her sole claim being that victims have a constitutional right to a delayed appeal. 5
The court affirmed, holding the appellate rules validly restrict delayed appeals to defendants and do not violate Marsy’s Law, due process, or equal protection. 6

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Can a victim file a delayed appeal under App.R. 5? 7	M.S. says victims have a constitutional right to seek delayed appeal.	Barnes says App.R. 5 limits delayed appeals to defendants.	No; the rule permits delayed appeals only for defendants. 8
Does Marsy’s Law create a delayed-appeal right? 9	M.S. argues Marsy’s Law implicitly guarantees delayed appeals.	Barnes argues Marsy’s Law grants appeal rights, not untimely appeals.	No; Marsy’s Law does not confer delayed-appeal rights. 10
Does denying M.S. a delayed appeal violate due process? 11	M.S. claims she lacked a meaningful opportunity to be heard.	Barnes argues she had a direct appeal but voluntarily dismissed it.	No; she had an opportunity to appeal and abandoned it. 12
Does excluding victims from delayed appeals violate equal protection? 13	M.S. argues victims and defendants must be treated the same.	Barnes argues the classification is rationally related to legitimate interests.	No; rational-basis review is satisfied. 14

State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (Ohio 1967) (res judicata bars claims that were or could have been raised in a prior final judgment 15)
Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414 (U.S. 1944) (constitutional rights may be forfeited by failure to timely assert them 16)
Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 (U.S. 1988) (constitutional rights may be conditioned on adherence to procedural rules 17)
San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1973) (defines suspect class and fundamental-right principles for equal protection 18)
Ondo v. City of Cleveland, 795 F.3d 597 (6th Cir. 2015) (crime victims are not a suspect class 19)
Federal Communications Commission v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1993) (rational-basis review is highly deferential 20)