Mandating 30-Day Memorandum Requirement for Delayed Appeals: New Ohio Precedent (2025-Ohio-1090)

Introduction

On April 1, 2025, the Supreme Court of Ohio issued a consolidated set of rulings in its “Case Announcements” (2025-Ohio-1090), addressing motions for leave to file delayed appeals, petitions for stays, and requests for expedited consideration across a spectrum of criminal and civil cases. The parties ranged from individual criminal defendants (e.g., Davenport, Kerns, Griffin) to corporate litigants (e.g., Wilson Energy, L.L.C., Bishop v. Bishop) and election-law relators (Elmore v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Elections). The key procedural issue was whether appellants who missed statutory appeal deadlines could secure leave to file late, and, if granted, what post-grant obligations—most notably the filing of a memorandum in support of jurisdiction—would attach.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court considered nine separate motions for delayed appeal and several other procedural requests. Motions in

State v. Davenport and State v. McAfee were denied;
State v. Kerns, Griffin, and Linek were granted, subject to a 30-day deadline to file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction;
Bishop v. Bishop (motion for stay) and State ex rel. Elmore (motion to expedite) were denied;

In addition, the Court accepted a handful of new appeals for review, held some causes pending related decisions, and refused review in many others. Multiple dissenting opinions (by Chief Justice Kennedy, and Justices Deters, Hawkins, DeWine, Brunner and Fischer) signal a divided bench on the proper scope of the Court’s leave-to-appeal discretion.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

While the announcement list does not contain full bench opinions, it repeatedly references the underlying appellate decisions and prior Ohio Supreme Court orders:

2023-Ohio-2953 (State v. Davenport) and 2024-Ohio-1132 (State v. McAfee) – earlier appellate rulings whose procedural posture formed the basis for these delayed appeal motions.
2024-Ohio-4894 (State v. Griffin) – underscoring the Court’s willingness to revive certain criminal appeals despite late filing.
2024-1050 (State v. Striblin) and 2024-1696 (Bethel Oil & Gas v. Redbird Dev.) – cited in causes held sua sponte pending resolution of related legal questions.

Those citations reflect the Court’s standard practice of anchoring procedural rulings in the context of preceding final‐appeal deadlines and its own docket management precedents.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s divided votes reveal two core strands of reasoning:

Strict adherence to appellate time limits: For motions denied (e.g., Davenport, McAfee), dissenters argued for more leniency or clarified standards, but the majority adhered to statutory deadlines and the requirement to demonstrate excusable neglect.
Structured post-grant requirements: For motions granted (Kerns, Griffin, Linek), the unanimous imposition of a 30-day deadline to file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction establishes a firm timetable. This ensures that if leave is granted, the Supreme Court will promptly receive the legal arguments it must consider under Rule 7.08 of the Supreme Court Rules for Practice and Procedure.

By uniformly attaching the 30-day memorandum requirement, the Court underscores its commitment to efficient case processing, balancing equitable access to review with docket management.

Impact

This announcement collectively creates or clarifies several procedural guideposts:

Any appellant granted leave to file a delayed appeal must submit a jurisdictional memorandum within 30 days, or risk dismissal.
Disagreements among the justices suggest possible future refinement of “excusable neglect” standards for delayed‐appeal relief.
Trial and appellate practitioners will plan for an immediate post-grant briefing schedule, reducing uncertainty about how long they have to crystallize arguments for Supreme Court review.
The pattern of holding causes for related decisions signals that the Ohio Supreme Court will continue to coordinate cases raising similar legal questions, which may accelerate doctrinal development in areas like election law and oil-and-gas disputes.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Delayed Appeal: When a party misses the statutory deadline to appeal, they may file a “motion for leave” asking the Supreme Court’s permission to proceed late.
Memorandum in Support of Jurisdiction: A brief explaining why the Supreme Court should accept the appeal—identifying legal issues of public importance, conflicts among appellate courts, or clear errors in the trial record.
Sua Sponte Hold: The Court can on its own initiative pause consideration of a case until a related precedent is decided, to ensure consistent outcomes.

Conclusion

The April 1, 2025 case announcements (2025-Ohio-1090) mark a significant procedural milestone: the Supreme Court of Ohio’s standardized imposition of a 30-day deadline for memoranda following grants of leave to file delayed appeals. By doing so, the Court has clarified the interplay between equitable relief for late filers and the need for prompt, organized jurisdictional briefing. Although the bench remains divided on the scope of excusable‐neglect relief, practitioners now have an unambiguous timetable for post-leave submissions. Going forward, this precedent will shape both litigants’ strategic planning and the Court’s internal docket management, reinforcing Ohio’s commitment to timely and fair appellate review.