2018 Ohio 4521
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Drayshon Congress sought to reopen his appeal under Ohio App.R. 26(B) claiming ineffective assistance of appellate counsel regarding the denial of his motion to vacate a guilty plea.
- The appellate judgment Congress sought to reopen was journalized December 17, 2015.
- Congress filed his App.R. 26(B) application on August 2, 2018 — well past the 90-day filing deadline.
- He argued late filing was excused by (1) not receiving timely notice from appellate counsel, (2) reliance on counsel’s advice, and (3) ignorance of the law.
- The court held Congress failed to show good cause for the untimely filing and additionally ruled App.R. 26(B) does not permit reopening an appeal of a denial of a motion to vacate a guilty plea (only direct appeals of convictions and sentences).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether good cause excuses filing App.R. 26(B) more than 90 days after journalization | The State argued the 90-day rule is mandatory and protects finality | Congress argued lack of timely notice from counsel, reliance on counsel, and ignorance of law justified delay | No — Congress failed to show good cause; excuses rejected |
| Whether reliance on counsel or delayed notification constitutes good cause | State maintained routine procedural rule enforcement applies | Congress claimed detrimental reliance on appellate counsel and late notice | No — reliance or counsel delay is not good cause |
| Whether ignorance of law justifies untimely App.R. 26(B) filing | State asserted ignorance is not an exception to the deadline | Congress claimed he was unaware of the rule and timing | No — ignorance of law insufficient |
| Whether App.R. 26(B) applies to appeals from denial of a motion to vacate a guilty plea | State argued App.R. 26(B) applies only to direct appeals from conviction/sentence | Congress sought reopening of appeal from denial of plea-withdrawal motion | No — App.R. 26(B) does not cover appeals of postconviction plea-withdrawal rulings |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gumm, 103 Ohio St.3d 162, 814 N.E.2d 861 (2004) (enforces App.R. 26(B) 90-day deadline and rejects routine excuses)
- State v. Lamar, 102 Ohio St.3d 467, 812 N.E.2d 970 (2004) (App.R. 26(B) deadline applies to all appellants)
- State v. Winstead, 74 Ohio St.3d 277, 658 N.E.2d 722 (1996) (90-day requirement is applicable to all appellants)
- State v. Loomer, 76 Ohio St.3d 398, 667 N.E.2d 1209 (1996) (App.R. 26(B) does not apply to postconviction proceedings such as motions to vacate pleas)
- State v. Cooey, 73 Ohio St.3d 411, 653 N.E.2d 252 (1995) (supports strict enforcement of procedural deadlines)