Background
Eric Washington was convicted of two counts of rape and one count of kidnapping with firearm specifications in Cuyahoga County. He appealed his convictions on March 5, 2026, and the Ohio Court of Appeals, Eighth District, affirmed them in State v. Washington, 2026-Ohio-740. On June 11, 2026—98 days after the appellate decision was journalized—Washington filed an application to reopen the judgment pursuant to App.R. 26(B).
In his application, Washington argued that his appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to raise a statute-of-limitations defense claim based on ineffective assistance of trial counsel. However, Washington filed his application four days after the 90-day deadline prescribed by the rules of appellate procedure and provided no explanation for the delay.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals denied the application to reopen. The court held that App.R. 26(B) requires applications claiming ineffective assistance of appellate counsel to be filed within 90 days of journalization of the appellate court’s decision, absent a showing of good cause. The Ohio Supreme Court has strictly enforced this deadline, rejecting numerous excuses including continued representation by the same appellate counsel, courier delays, mail system failures, and miscalculation of mailing time.
Because Washington’s application was filed 98 days after journalization—outside the 90-day window—and he presented no explanation demonstrating good cause for the untimely filing, the court denied the application as procedurally defective. The substantive merits of his ineffective assistance claim were not addressed.
Key Takeaways
- The 90-day deadline for App.R. 26(B) applications is strictly construed; courts will not accept late filings without compelling good cause.
- Good cause requires more than lack of effort, ignorance of the law, or logistical obstacles such as mail delays or courier failures.
- Applicants must either comply with the deadline themselves or retain new counsel if their appellate attorney is conflicted; continued representation does not extend the deadline.
- Procedurally defective applications are dismissed without reaching the merits of the underlying ineffective assistance claim.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the finality of appellate judgments and the procedural gatekeeping function of strict filing deadlines. For defendants seeking to challenge appellate counsel’s performance, the 90-day window is a critical jurisdictional requirement. Missing the deadline—even by a few days—bars relief regardless of the strength of the underlying ineffective assistance claim. Practitioners and pro se litigants must calendar this deadline carefully and either file within the period or demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying delay.
The ruling also illustrates that the Ohio courts treat App.R. 26(B) applications as procedurally rigid; courts will not exercise discretion to extend the deadline based on sympathetic circumstances or potential merit. This creates a high burden for defendants attempting to reopen cases on grounds of appellate counsel ineffectiveness.