Ohio App. R. 26

As amended through August 6, 2019
Rule 26 - Application for Reconsideration; Application for En Banc Consideration; Application for Reopening
(A) Application for reconsideration and en banc consideration.
(1) Reconsideration
(a) Application for reconsideration of any cause or motion submitted on appeal shall be made in writing no later than ten days after the clerk has both mailed to the parties the judgment or order in question and made a note on the docket of the mailing as required by App. R. 30(A).
(b) Parties opposing the application shall answer in writing within ten days of service of the application. The party making the application may file a reply brief within seven days of service of the answer brief in opposition. Copies of the application, answer brief in opposition, and reply brief shall be served in the manner prescribed for the service and filing of briefs in the initial action. Oral argument of an application for reconsideration shall not be permitted except at the request of the court.
(c) The application for reconsideration shall be considered by the panel that issued the original decision.
(2) En banc consideration
(a) Upon a determination that two or more decisions of the court on which they sit are in conflict, a majority of the en banc court may order that an appeal or other proceeding be considered en banc. The en banc court shall consist of all fulltime judges of the appellate district who have not recused themselves or otherwise been disqualified from the case. Consideration en banc is not favored and will not be ordered unless necessary to secure or maintain uniformity of decisions within the district on an issue that is dispositive in the case in which the application is filed.
(b) The en banc court may order en banc consideration sua sponte. A party may also make an application for en banc consideration. An application for en banc consideration must explain how the panel's decision conflicts with a prior panel's decision on a dispositive issue and why consideration by the court en banc is necessary to secure and maintain uniformity of the court's decisions.
(c) The rules applicable to applications for reconsideration set forth in division (A)(1) of this rule, including the timing requirements, govern applications for en banc consideration. Any sua sponte order designating a case for en banc consideration must be entered no later than ten days after the clerk has both mailed the judgment or order in question and made a note on the docket of the mailing as required by App. R. 30(A). In addition, a party may file an application for en banc consideration, or the court may order it sua sponte, within ten days of the date the clerk has both mailed to the parties the judgment or order of the court ruling on a timely filed application for reconsideration under division (A)(1) of this rule if an intra-district conflict first arises as a result of that judgment or order and made a note on the docket of the mailing, as required by App. R. 30(A). A party filing both an application for reconsideration and an application for en banc consideration simultaneously shall do so in a single document.
(d) The decision of the en banc court shall become the decision of the court. In the event a majority of the full-time judges of the appellate district is unable to concur in a decision, the decision of the original panel shall remain the decision in the case unless vacated under App. R. 26(A)(2)(c) and, if so vacated, shall be reentered.
(e) Other procedures governing the initiation, filing, briefing, rehearing, reconsideration, and determination of en banc proceedings may be prescribed by local rule or as otherwise ordered by the court.
(B) Application for reopening.
(1) A defendant in a criminal case may apply for reopening of the appeal from the judgment of conviction and sentence, based on a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. An application for reopening shall be filed in the court of appeals where the appeal was decided within ninety days from journalization of the appellate judgment unless the applicant shows good cause for filing at a later time.
(2) An application for reopening shall contain all of the following:
(a) The appellate case number in which reopening is sought and the trial court case number or numbers from which the appeal was taken;
(b) A showing of good cause for untimely filing if the application is filed more than ninety days after journalization of the appellate judgment.
(c) One or more assignments of error or arguments in support of assignments of error that previously were not considered on the merits in the case by any appellate court or that were considered on an incomplete record because of appellate counsel's deficient representation;
(d) A sworn statement of the basis for the claim that appellate counsel's representation was deficient with respect to the assignments of error or arguments raised pursuant to division (B)(2)(c) of this rule and the manner in which the deficiency prejudicially affected the outcome of the appeal, which may include citations to applicable authorities and references to the record;
(e) Any parts of the record available to the applicant and all supplemental affidavits upon which the applicant relies.
(3) The applicant shall furnish an additional copy of the application to the clerk of the court of appeals who shall serve it on the attorney for the prosecution. The attorney for the prosecution, within thirty days from the filing of the application, may file and serve affidavits, parts of the record, and a memorandum of law in opposition to the application.
(4) An application for reopening and an opposing memorandum shall not exceed ten pages, exclusive of affidavits and parts of the record. Oral argument of an application for reopening shall not be permitted except at the request of the court.
(5) An application for reopening shall be granted if there is a genuine issue as to whether the applicant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel on appeal.
(6) If the court denies the application, it shall state in the entry the reasons for denial. If the court grants the application, it shall do both of the following:
(a) appoint counsel to represent the applicant if the applicant is indigent and not currently represented;
(b) impose conditions, if any, necessary to preserve the status quo during pendency of the reopened appeal.

The clerk shall serve notice of journalization of the entry on the parties and, if the application is granted, on the clerk of the trial court.

(7) If the application is granted, the case shall proceed as on an initial appeal in accordance with these rules except that the court may limit its review to those assignments of error and arguments not previously considered. The time limits for preparation and transmission of the record pursuant to App. R. 9 and 10 shall run from journalization of the entry granting the application. The parties shall address in their briefs the claim that representation by prior appellate counsel was deficient and that the applicant was prejudiced by that deficiency.
(8) If the court of appeals determines that an evidentiary hearing is necessary, the evidentiary hearing may be conducted by the court or referred to a magistrate.
(9) If the court finds that the performance of appellate counsel was deficient and the applicant was prejudiced by that deficiency, the court shall vacate its prior judgment and enter the appropriate judgment. If the court does not so find, the court shall issue an order confirming its prior judgment.

Ohio. App. R. 26

Effective:July 1, 1971; amended effective July 1, 1975;July 1, 1993;July 1, 1994;July 1, 1997;July 1, 2010;July 1, 2011;July 1, 2012.

Staff Note (July 1, 2010 amendment) App. R. 26(A) has now been subdivided into two provisions: App. R. 26(A)(1) governs applications for reconsideration (former App. R. 26(A)), while App. R. 26(A)(2) is a new provision governing en banc consideration. The amendment to former App. R. 26(A) (now App. R. 26(A)(1)) contemplates a future amendment to the Supreme Court Practice Rules that will extend the time to appeal to the Supreme Court if a party has filed a timely application for reconsideration in the court of appeals. It also ensures a responding party's full ten-day response period, even if that party does not receive the application on the day it is filed. Because the ten-day response period now begins to run from the date of service, a party served by mail now has an extra three days to file an opposition. See App. R. 14(C). Finally, the amendment permits the moving party a reply in support of the application within seven days of service of the opposition; this clarification avoids any ambiguity about the right to file a reply in support of a motion under App. R. 15(A). The addition of App. R. 26(A)(2) is designed to address the Supreme Court's decision in McFadden v. Cleveland State Univ., 120 Ohio St.3d 54, 2008-Ohio-4914, 896 N.E.2d 672 and, in particular, the holding that "if the judges of a court of appeals determine that two or more decisions of the court on which they sit are in conflict, they must convene en banc to resolve the conflict." Id., paragraph two of the syllabus. The new provision establishes a standard for parties to seek en banc consideration under the same procedures that govern applications for reconsideration under App. R. 26(A)(1), except that a party may also seek consideration en banc within ten days of a judgment or order ruling on an application for reconsideration if that ruling itself creates an intra-district conflict that did not appear from the panel's original decision. The new provision also allows courts of appeals to establish their own procedures to the extent consistent with the statewide rule. Former App. R 26(C), which required courts of appeals to decide applications for reconsideration within 45 days, has been eliminated in anticipation of an amendment to the Supreme Court Rules of Practice that will toll the time to appeal to the Supreme Court if a party has filed a timely application for reconsideration or en banc consideration in the court of appeals. Staff Note (July 1, 2011 amendment) There are two amendments to App. R. 26(A)(1)(a). The first changes the event that starts the running of the ten-day period for filing an application for reconsideration. Under the former rule, the motion was due before the judgment or order of the court was approved by the court and filed by the court with the clerk for journalization or within ten days of the announcement of the court's decision, whichever was later. Under the amended rule, the motion is due within ten days after the clerk complies with the mailing and docketing requirements of App. R. 30(A). And because the timing requirements for applications for reconsideration under App. R. 26(A)(1)(a) also govern the timing for filing an application for en banc consideration under App. R. 26(A)(2), the clerk's compliance with the mailing and docketing requirements of App. R. 30(A) also now trigger the time to file an application for en banc consideration. The second amendment to App. R. 26(A)(1)(a) deletes language warning that an application for reconsideration did not extend the time to appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court; effective July 1, 2010, a timely filed application for reconsideration under App. R. 26(A)(1) or for en banc consideration under App. R. 26(A)(2) does extend the time to appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court under S.Ct. Prac. R. 2.2(A)(5) and (6). There are also several amendments to App. R. 26(A)(2). Two of them are clarifications. The first clarification appears in App. R. 26(A)(2)(a) and is designed to clarify that a majority of the "en banc court", a defined term that does not include judges who have recused themselves or been disqualified, must agree to consider a case en banc. By contrast, under App. R. 26(A)(2)(d), in order to render an en banc decision, "a majority of the full-time judges of the appellate district" including those who do not actually participate in the en banc consideration, must agree. The second clarification appears in App. R. 26(A)(2)(b), which expressly permits the en banc court to decide sua sponte to consider a case en banc. No substantive changes are intended by either of these amendments. Two substantive amendments to App. R. 26(A)(2)(c) govern the process for sua sponte en banc consideration. First, the rule now specifies that any sua sponte decision to consider a case en banc must be made within ten days of the date the clerk complies with the mailing and docketing requirements of App. R. 30(A). The former rule included no time limit for a sua sponte decision to consider a case en banc, and this addition was intended to ensure finality to the appellate process. Second, if the court decides sua sponte to consider a case en banc, it must vacate the judgments or orders in the case that will be considered en banc so that the time for a party to appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court does not run concurrently with the court's sua sponte en banc consideration. A recent amendment to the Supreme Court Practice Rules extends the time to appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court in the event that a party files a timely application for en banc consideration, but there is no such provision in the event the court of appeals decides sua sponte to consider a case en banc. See S.Ct. Prac. R. 2.2(a)(6). Staff Notes (July 1, 2012 amendment) The amendment to App.R. 26(A)(2)(c) removes language added in 2011 that required a court of appeals to vacate a panel decision in the event of a sua sponte decision to consider a case en banc. That language was added to ensure that a party's time to appeal to the Supreme Court would not begin to run while en banc consideration was pending. But the language is no longer necessary in light of a 2011 amendment to S.Ct.Prac.R. 2.2.