State v. Lashley
2017 Ohio 8915
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Elijah J. Lashley, Sr. pleaded guilty to two counts of kidnapping and two counts of felonious assault and was sentenced to an aggregate 13 years.
- On direct appeal, appointed counsel filed an Anders brief and sought to withdraw.
- This court found the trial court had made the required consecutive-sentence findings at a subsequent hearing but failed to include specific findings in the journal entry (the entry merely copied R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)); court reversed and remanded for a nunc pro tunc entry with specific findings.
- Lashley filed a pro se application for reconsideration (or alternatively to reopen) beyond the ten-day deadline and claimed he never received the appellate judgment; the clerk’s docket showed the opinion was mailed to counsel on May 30, 2017.
- Lashley also sought reopening under App.R. 26(B) alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for not challenging that sentencing occurred over two dates (claiming double jeopardy/due process).
- The court denied reconsideration as untimely (no extraordinary circumstances shown) and denied reopening because Lashley’s application lacked required sworn statements/record portions and did not raise a genuine Strickland-based issue on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of motion for reconsideration | Motion untimely under App.R. 26(A); docket shows mailing date | Lashley: he never received the judgment entry; sought leave to file instanter | Denied — motion untimely; docket shows mail to counsel; no extraordinary circumstances shown |
| Whether to permit delayed filing for reconsideration | Court may allow delay only for extraordinary circumstances | Lashley claimed nonreceipt of opinion | Denied — unsuccessful showing of extraordinary circumstances |
| Reopening under App.R. 26(B) for ineffective appellate counsel | App.R. 26(B) requires sworn statement, assignments, parts of record and demonstration of genuine issue | Lashley argued counsel should have challenged multi-date sentencing (double jeopardy/due process) | Denied — application defective (no sworn statement or record) and fails to show a genuine Strickland claim |
| Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not challenging sentencing over two dates | Court: journal controls; trial court retained jurisdiction and made required findings before issuing sentence | Lashley: sentencing spanned two dates, allegedly raising double jeopardy/due process concerns | Denied — no deficient performance: trial court made findings before journalizing; Brooke principle that court speaks through its journal entries supports outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (establishes counsel’s duty to file brief identifying any nonfrivolous issues when seeking to withdraw)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two‑prong ineffective‑assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
- State v. Brooke, 113 Ohio St.3d 199 (2007) (Ohio Supreme Court: a trial court speaks through its journal entries)
- Columbus v. Hodge, 37 Ohio App.3d 68 (10th Dist. 1987) (standard for reconsideration: calls court’s attention to obvious error or unconsidered issues)