2014 Ohio 672
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Defendant Harris pleaded guilty to murder with a specification and felonious assault on Sept. 9, 2013, and was sentenced to 18 to life.
- Defendant's pro se notice of appeal was filed Oct. 30, 2013 in 13AP-921, challenging the judgment entered Sept. 9, 2013.
- Counsel was appointed for appeal; two separate appellate-counsel appointments occurred but neither entered an appearance in 13AP-921.
- Efforts in 13AP-921 led to a sua sponte dismissal on Jan. 7, 2014 due to failure to file a brief under App.R. 18(C).
- Attorney Gjostein filed a motion for leave to file a delayed reconsideration in 13AP-921 on Feb. 6, 2014, after the dismissal; this court denied consideration based on timeliness and lack of extraordinary circumstances.
- The court later granted leave to file a delayed appeal in 13AP-1014, but denied leave to file a delayed reconsideration and an extension of time.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether leave to appeal from the judgment was properly granted | State argues timely filing requirements were not met | Harris showed reasons for delay and desire to appeal | Granted leave to appeal in 13AP-1014 |
| Whether the delayed motion for reconsideration should be entertained | Untimely under App.R. 26; no extraordinary circumstances | Timeliness excused by complexity and counsel delays | Denied leave to file delayed motion for reconsideration and extension |
| Whether dismissal of 13AP-921 for failure to timely file was jurisdictionally fatal | Dismissal for lack of timely brief preserves appeal rights | Procedural irregularities and attempted timely filing showed intent to appeal | Not essential to grant relief; but impacts consideration of 13AP-921 prenotions |
Key Cases Cited
- Corporex Dev. & Constr. Mgmt., Inc. v. Shook, Inc., 2004-Ohio-2715 (10th Dist. 2004) (App.R. 26 reconsideration standard; obvious error standard grounded in justice)
- State v. Owens, 112 Ohio App.3d 334 (11th Dist. 1996) (obvious error or new issue warranting reconsideration)
- Columbus v. Hodge, 37 Ohio App.3d 68 (10th Dist. 1987) (reconsideration standards; not to relitigate the merits)
- Bae v. Dragoo & Assoc., Inc., 2004-Ohio-1297 (10th Dist. 2004) (not automatic for reconsideration; requires important issue)
- State v. Boone, 114 Ohio App.3d 275 (7th Dist. 1996) (extending time for reconsideration on extraordinary circumstances)
- State v. Lawson, 2013-Ohio-803 (10th Dist. 2013) (extraordinary circumstances may justify late reconsideration)
- State v. Alexander, 2005-Ohio-5997 (10th Dist. 2005) (delayed appeal granted when substantial showing of intent to appeal)
- In re H.F., 2008-Ohio-6810 (Sup. Ct. 2008) (jurisdictional implications of untimely notice of appeal)
- State v. Monroe, 2012-Ohio-239 (10th Dist. 2012) (timeliness and appellate procedures in appeal rights)