2018 Ohio 3494
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Defendant Deeshawn T. Campbell filed an App.R. 26(B) application to reopen his direct appeal of guilty pleas and 25-year aggregated sentence affirmed by this court.
- The appellate judgment being challenged was journalized February 22, 2018; Campbell’s reopening application was filed June 15, 2018.
- Campbell claimed the application was untimely because prison mail-system delays prevented filing within the 90-day App.R. 26(B) deadline.
- The court considered both the timeliness (good-cause) question and the merits alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel and sentencing-package doctrine error.
- The court found Campbell did not establish good cause for the untimely filing and, on the merits, that his claims lacked merit: the sentence was an agreed sentence and not appealable, and the trial court separately imposed consecutive terms after Campbell waived defects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness / Good cause to excuse App.R. 26(B) 90-day deadline | State: enforce the 90-day rule; applicant must show good cause | Campbell: prison mail delays prevented timely filing | Denied — prison/mail delays do not constitute good cause; application untimely |
| Ineffective assistance of appellate counsel | State: no reversible deficient performance shown | Campbell: appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to raise sentencing issues | Denied — proposed assignments fail to demonstrate ineffective assistance |
| Appealability of agreed sentence | State: agreed sentence waives appeal on sentence | Campbell: challenges to the aggregate 25-year sentence and package doctrine | Denied — agreed sentence not appealable; trial court imposed separate counts and consecutive terms; defendant waived defects |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gumm, 103 Ohio St.3d 162 (2004) (App.R. 26(B) 90-day deadline must be enforced and applies to all appellants)
- State v. Lamar, 102 Ohio St.3d 467 (2004) (reinforcing enforcement of App.R. 26(B) timing requirements)
- State v. Cooey, 73 Ohio St.3d 411 (1995) (procedural limits on reopening appeals)
- State v. Reddick, 72 Ohio St.3d 88 (1995) (addressing appellate procedure and finality)
- State v. Winstead, 74 Ohio St.3d 277 (1996) (courier or mail delays do not constitute good cause to accept an untimely App.R. 26(B) application)