State v. Dodson , 2023 Ohio 1341 ( 2023 )

[Cite as State v. Dodson, 2023-Ohio-1341.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
State of Ohio, :
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
No. 22AP-342
v. : (C.P.C. No. 90CR-5678B)
Ricardo Dodson, : (REGULAR CALENDAR)
Defendant-Appellant. :
D E C I S I O N
Rendered on April 25, 2023
On brief: G. Gary Tyack, Prosecuting Attorney, and
Taylor M. Mick, for appellee.
On brief: Ricardo Dodson, pro se.
ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE DELAYED APPEAL
BOGGS, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Ricardo Dodson, has filed pursuant to App.R. 5(A) a
motion for leave to appeal. Dodson seeks leave to appeal the Franklin County Court of
Common Pleas denial of a motion to record and journalize the jury verdicts rendered on
Dodson’s kidnapping counts. Plaintiff-appellee, State of Ohio, has filed a response,
opposing Dodson’s motion. Because Dodson has not provided a reasonable explanation for
the delay in filing his appeal, the motion is denied.
{¶ 2} App.R. 4(A) grants parties an appeal of right within 30 days of a final order.
App.R. 5(A) allows a defendant to file a motion for leave to file a delayed appeal after the
expiration of the 30-day period provided by App.R. 4(A). Such a motion must set forth the
reasons for the defendant’s failure to perfect an appeal as of right. “The defendant has the
burden of ‘demonstrating a reasonable explanation of the basis for failure to perfect a timely
appeal.’ ” State v. Morris, 10th Dist. No. 05AP-1139, 2005-Ohio-6479, ¶ 3, quoting State
No. 22AP-342 2
v. Cromlish, 10th Dist. No. 94APA06-855 (Sept. 1, 1994). “Lack of effort or imagination,
and ignorance of the law * * * do not automatically establish good cause for failure to seek
timely relief.” State v. Reddick, 72 Ohio St.3d 88, 91 (1995). The decision to grant or deny
a motion for leave to file a delayed appeal, pursuant to App.R. 5(A), rests within the
appellate court's sound discretion. Morris, 2005-Ohio-6479.
{¶ 3} We also note that pro se litigants, such as Dodson, are bound by the same
rules and procedures as litigants who are represented by counsel. White v. Fifth Third
Bank, 10th Dist. No. 10AP-236, 2010-Ohio-4611, ¶ 13, citing Zukowski v. Brunner, 125
Ohio St.3d 53, 2010-Ohio-1652. A litigant proceeding pro se can neither expect nor request
special treatment. Kessler v. Kessler, 10th Dist. No. 09AP-740, 2010-Ohio-2369. “[W]ith
respect to procedural rules, pro se litigants are to be held to the same standards as members
of the bar.” Asset Acceptance, LLC v. Evans, 10th Dist. No. 04AP-36, 2004-Ohio-3382,
¶ 9.
{¶ 4} On May 23, 2022, Dodson filed notices of appeal from the Franklin County
Court of Common Pleas April 19, 2022 order denying his “Motion Requesting, Pursuant to
R.C. §2945.78 to Record and Journalize the Kidnaping Jury Verdict’s [sic] that found
Defendant not guilty of First Degree Kidnapping Counts Based on Jury Finding that
Defendant Released the Victim in a Safe Place Unharmed.” The last date for a timely appeal
from that order was May 19, 2022. Appellant’s appeals were assigned case Nos. 22AP-297
and 22AP-299, and this court consolidated the appeals on May 24, 2022. This court
dismissed the appeals as untimely and denied appellant’s motion for reconsideration.
{¶ 5} Dodson filed his motion for leave to file a delayed appeal on June 14, 2022.
In it, Dodson repeats the arguments he made in his unsuccessful motion for
reconsideration in the prior cases. He asserts that his original notice of appeal was in fact
timely “because the Court received the notice by way of certified registered mail and signed
the receipt on May 16, 2022.” (Mot. at 3.) Citing Kloos v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.,
10th Dist. No. 87AP-1215, 1988 Ohio App. LEXIS 1744 (May 3, 1988), Dodson argues the
seven-day lapse between the date of receipt and docketing “should not act as a basis upon
which to bar appellant’s claims and thereby prejudice him.” (Mot. at 3.) However, Kloos
found the certified-mail receipt date was controlling only when it was apparent that the
filing had been received days before it was docketed by the court. That is not the case here.
No. 22AP-342 3
{¶ 6} While Dodson points this court to a signed certified registered mail receipt
dated May 17, 2022, it is not apparent that is the correct receipt for his motion for leave to
file a delayed appeal. Appellant also submits a computer printout of tracking information
for an item delivered on May 16, 2022, but the printout lacks any indication of the sender,
recipient, or contents of the tracked item. Further, the tracking number for the May 16,
2022 delivery does not match the tracking number on the certified mail receipt attached to
Dodson’s motion.
{¶ 7} Dodson offers no other explanation for the failure to file a timely appeal, but
rests his claim solely on alleged, but not apparent, delay by the Clerk’s office. Upon
consideration of the grounds asserted, we find Dodson has not set forth a sufficient reason
for the failure to file a timely notice of appeal. Accordingly, Dodson’s motion for leave to
file a delayed appeal is denied. The denial of Dodson’s motion for leave to file a delayed
appeal renders all other outstanding motions moot and we decline to address them.
Motion for leave to file delayed appeal denied.
BEATTY BLUNT, P.J., and JAMISON, J. concur.
_________________