2018 Ohio 4292
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Darrell Stepherson filed a motion titled a "Void Sentence Motion For Re-sentencing Based upon a Void Judgment" in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas on or about January 30, 2018.
- The trial court entered a judgment denying Stepherson’s motion on March 19, 2018 and the entry was journalized that same day.
- Stepherson did not file a notice of appeal until May 31, 2018 — 73 days after the journalized entry.
- App.R. 4(A)(1) requires a notice of appeal within 30 days of a final judgment; the 30-day limit is jurisdictional.
- Stepherson argued the clerk delayed sending him a copy of the decision and sought tolling under App.R. 4(A)(3)/Civ.R. 58(B).
- The court treated the matter as a criminal case (a motion to correct a void sentence) and held the civil-service tolling rule did not apply, dismissed the untimely appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Stepherson’s appeal timely? | State: Appeal filed after 30-day deadline; untimely. | Stepherson: Notice late because clerk delayed sending court’s entry; tolling should apply. | Appeal untimely; filed 73 days after journal entry; court lacks jurisdiction. |
| Does App.R. 4(A)(3)/Civ.R. 58(B) toll the 30-day appeal period here? | State: Civil tolling rule does not apply to criminal judgments or motions to correct void sentences. | Stepherson: Clerk’s failure to serve him delayed his ability to appeal, so tolling should apply. | Tolling under Civ.R. 58(B)/App.R. 4(A)(3) does not apply to this criminal post-judgment context. |
| Is Stepherson’s filing a postconviction petition (which would be governed by civil rules)? | State: It is a motion to correct a void sentence in a criminal case, not a postconviction petition. | Stepherson: Framed as a motion to correct void judgment but argued procedural delay should excuse late appeal. | Court treated it as a motion to correct a void sentence (criminal context), so civil-postconviction exception inapplicable. |
| Could Stepherson obtain relief by seeking leave for a delayed appeal under App.R. 5(A)? | State: Not addressed as a basis to excuse the late filing here. | Stepherson: Did not move for delayed appeal under App.R. 5(A). | Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; noted Stepherson did not seek leave for a delayed appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Noling, 136 Ohio St.3d 163 (2013) (App.R. 4’s time limit is jurisdictional)
- State v. Nichols, 11 Ohio St.3d 40 (1984) (distinguishing postconviction proceedings and application of civil rules)
- State v. Raber, 134 Ohio St.3d 350 (2012) (trial courts retain jurisdiction to correct a void sentence)
- State ex rel. White v. Junkin, 80 Ohio St.3d 335 (1997) (trial courts lack authority to reconsider valid final criminal judgments)
- State ex rel. Cruzado v. Zaleski, 111 Ohio St.3d 353 (2006) (discussing continuing jurisdiction to correct void sentences)
- State ex rel. Hansen v. Reed, 63 Ohio St.3d 597 (1992) (void-judgment correction principles)