State v. Wickline - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

1
The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Wickline, Appellant.
2
[Cite as State v. Wickline (1996), _____ Ohio St.3d _____.]
3
Appellate procedure -- Application for reopening appeal from
4
judgment and conviction based on claim of ineffective
5
assistance of appellate counsel -- Application denied when
6
applicant fails to show good cause for failing to file his
7
application within ninety days after journalization of the court of
8
appeals' decision affirming the conviction, as required by
9
App.R. 26(B).
10

(No. 95-690--Submitted September 26, 1995--Decided January 24,
11
1996.)
12
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 87AP-46.
13

Appellant, William D. Wickline, was convicted of the aggravated
14
murders of Christopher and Peggy Lerch, and was sentenced to death for the
15
aggravated murder of Peggy Lerch. The court of appeals affirmed his
16
convictions and death sentence. State v. Wickline (Dec. 20, 1988), Franklin
17
App. No. 87AP-46, unreported. This court affirmed the court of appeals'
18
judgment. State v. Wickline (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 114, 552 N.E.2d 913.
19

On June 17, 1991, Wickline filed a petition for post-conviction relief
20
in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. Among his sixty-two

1
claims for relief, Wickline alleged ineffective assistance of appellate
2
counsel. On February 19, 1992, this court held that ineffective-appellate-
3
counsel claims are not cognizable in post-conviction actions. State v.
4
Murnahan (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 60, 584 N.E.2d 1204.
5

On May 8, 1992, the trial court dismissed Wickline's post-conviction
6
petition in its entirety, and Wickline appealed. In that appeal, Wickline
7
pressed his claim that ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal
8
justified post-conviction relief, despite our explicit rejection of that
9
contention in Murnahan. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's
10
dismissal of the post-conviction petition. State v. Wickline (June 28, 1994),
11
Franklin App. No. 93APA10-1411, unreported, 1994 WL 314055. With
12
respect to Wickline's ineffective-appellate-counsel claim, the court of
13
appeals specifically held that Murnahan precluded such a claim in a
14
proceeding for post-conviction relief. Wickline attempted to appeal this
15
judgment, but we overruled his motion in support of jurisdiction. State v.
16
Wickline (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 1405, 641 N.E.2d 202, reconsideration
17
denied (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 1430, 642 N.E.2d 637.

2

1

According to the parties, on November 14, 1994, Wickline filed in the
2
court of appeals an application to reopen the direct appeal of his conviction,
3
pursuant to App.R. 26(B), alleging ineffective assistance of appellate
4
counsel. The court of appeals denied the application because it had not
5
been filed within ninety days of the effective date of amended App.R.
6
26(B), and Wickline had failed to show good cause for the untimely filing.
7
This appeal followed.
8

Michael Miller, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, and Joyce S.
9
Anderson, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
10

David H. Bodiker, Ohio Public Defender, Dale A. Baich and William
11
S. Lazarow, Assistant Public Defenders, for appellant.
12

Per Curiam. Under App.R. 26(B)(2)(b), an application for reopening
13
requires "a showing of good cause for untimely filing if the application is
14
filed more than ninety days after journalization of the appellate judgment."
15
Here, the appellate judgment was journalized on December 20, 1988, but
16
the appellant did not file his application for reopening until November 14,
17
1994. Thus, Wickline was required to show good cause for the delay.

3

1

Wickline seeks to excuse his late filing on the grounds that App.R.
2
26(B) did not exist at the time the appellate judgment was journalized.
3
However, in State v. Reddick (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 88, 90, 647 N.E.2d 784,
4
786, we held that "an applicant who seeks to reopen an appellate judgment
5
journalized before July 1, 1993 may not simply rely on the fact that App.R.
6
26(B) did not exist within the ninety days following journalization of the
7
appellate judgment, but must show good cause why he or she did not
8
attempt to invoke the procedures available under former App.R. 26 and
9
14(B)."
10

Wickline claims that the court of appeals denied him due process by
11
"retroactively" invoking the time limit of amended App.R. 26(B) to bar his
12
claim. While the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution
13
applies only to legislative enactments, "due process places similar
14
constraints on a court's power to apply precedent to cases arising before the
15
precedent was announced." State v. Webb (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 325, 330,
16
638 N.E.2d 1023, 1029, fn. 1; see, also, State v. Garner (1995), 74 Ohio
17
St.3d 49, 57, 656 N.E.2d 623, 633.

4

1

Wickline contends that, until Murnahan, supra, motions to reopen an
2
appeal were not an available remedy for ineffective assistance of appellate
3
counsel. That is wrong; as Reddick amply demonstrates, Murnahan did not
4
create a new remedy. But even if it had, retroactive application of
5
Murnahan would not "punish as a crime an act previously committed, which
6
was innocent when done; nor make more burdensome the punishment for a
7
crime, after its commission; nor deprive one charged with crime of any
8
defense available according to law at the time when the act was committed."
9
Collins v. Youngblood (1990), 497 U.S. 37, 52, 110 S.Ct. 2715, 2724, 111
10
L.Ed.2d 30, 45. Thus, no issue exists under the Ex Post Facto Clause.
11

The failure of Wickline's claim under the Ex Post Facto Clause is
12
fatal to his due process claim. A state court may apply its own precedents
13
retroactively, so long as the application does not amount to an ex post facto
14
law. "A state in defining the limits of adherence to precedent may make a
15
choice for itself between the principle of forward operation and that of
16
relation backward." Great N. Ry. Co. v. Sunburst Oil & Refining Co.
17
(1932), 287 U.S. 358, 364, 55 S.Ct. 145, 148, 77 L.Ed. 360, 366 (Cardozo,
18
J.).

5

1

Wickline claims App.R. 26(B)'s good-cause requirement denies him
2
due process, because litigants with valid claims of ineffective appellate
3
counsel are denied an "effective" remedy for the constitutional violation.
4
This amounts to a contention that a litigant's delay, no matter how long,
5
must be forgiven even though there was no valid reason for the delay. We
6
reject that contention.
7

Wickline also claims the ninety-day deadline discriminates between
8
rich and poor appellants because the latter will be unable to obtain new
9
counsel in time to discover their former counsel's errors within ninety days
10
of judgment. But Wickline lacks standing to raise this issue. He has never
11
claimed that he was unable to file a timely application due to indigency. In
12
fact, the court of appeals stated that "[a]ppellant has been represented by
13
counsel throughout the course of these proceedings."
14

In another proposition of law, Wickline asserts his substantive claim
15
of ineffective appellate counsel. The court of appeals never reached that
16
claim, and it is not properly before us. Finally, Wickline complains that the
17
court of appeals ordered eighty-nine pages of his attorney's ninety-one-page

6

1
sworn statement to be stricken.1 Because the application was untimely filed,
2
this issue is moot.
3

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.
4
Judgment affirmed.
5

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER
6
and COOK, JJ., concur.
7

1 Pursuant to App.R. 26(B)(2)(d), Wickline attached to his application a ninety-one-page affidavit executed
by his present counsel. This affidavit argued in detail the merits of certain arguments allegedly forgone by
his original appellate counsel in 1988. The court of appeals ordered that eighty-nine pages of this affidavit
be stricken.

7