State v. Davenport, 2019 Ohio 4156

Davenport set fire to Sparks’s house on Nov. 5, 2015; Sparks died of smoke inhalation and Davenport confessed. He was indicted on multiple counts including aggravated murder and aggravated arson.
After a bench trial the court convicted Davenport and sentenced him to 25 years-to-life plus a consecutive 5-year term; the trial court also ordered payment of court costs despite counsel’s oral request to waive costs based on indigency.
Davenport’s appellate counsel challenged only trial counsel’s failure to pursue an insanity defense; this court previously affirmed the convictions.
Davenport filed an App.R. 26(B) application about ten months after the appellate decision, claiming appellate counsel was ineffective for not arguing the trial court abused its discretion by imposing court costs on an indigent defendant.
Davenport argued he had good cause for the late filing because trial counsel told him costs were waived, he was able to use the commissary for two years, and he only learned of the court-cost judgment in April 2019 when the prison placed a hold on his account. He filed the reopening application within a month of learning of the judgment.
The court denied reopening: it found the application untimely and that Davenport failed to show good cause; it also concluded appellate counsel reasonably omitted a challenge to costs and Davenport suffered no prejudice because a post-sentencing waiver is available.

Issue	State's Argument	Davenport's Argument	Held
Timeliness / good cause for untimely App.R. 26(B) filing	Application untimely; reliance on counsel or ignorance of judgment does not establish good cause	Trial counsel deceived him about waiver of costs; he only discovered costs in April 2019, so filing was within a month	No good cause; late filing denied under strict 90‑day rule
Ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for not challenging court costs	Omitting a costs argument was reasonable strategy; courts routinely impose costs on indigent defendants; counsel not required to raise every issue	Counsel should have challenged imposition of costs given obvious indigency	No ineffective assistance: counsel’s performance was reasonable and strategic
Prejudice from not raising court‑costs claim	No prejudice because defendant can seek waiver/suspension of costs at sentencing or any time thereafter under statute and Beasley	Failure to raise costs prevented relief on appeal; costs impose concrete harm	No prejudice: availability of post‑sentencing waiver defeats claim of a reasonable probability of a different outcome

Murnahan v. State, 63 Ohio St.3d 60 (1992) (governs App.R. 26(B) reopening standard)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong ineffective‑assistance standard)
Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745 (1983) (appellate counsel may winnow issues; not required to raise every nonfrivolous claim)
State v. LaMar, 102 Ohio St.3d 467 (2004) (strict enforcement of App.R. 26(B) deadline)
State v. Gumm, 103 Ohio St.3d 162 (2004) (same principle re: 90‑day deadline)
State v. White, 103 Ohio St.3d 580 (2004) (trial court may impose court costs irrespective of indigency; waiver is discretionary)
State v. Clevenger, 114 Ohio St.3d 258 (2007) (same principle on costs and discretionary waiver)
State v. Beasley, 153 Ohio St.3d 497 (2018) (court retains jurisdiction to waive, suspend, or modify costs after sentencing)