The Ohio Supreme Court ruled on July 22, 2026, that a crime victim does not have the right to file a delayed appeal regarding restitution after the trial court denied it. This decision affects victims' rights in Ohio and clarifies the procedural rules surrounding appeals in criminal cases. The case, known as State v. Barnes (Docket No. 2025-0030), involved a theft victim named M.S. who sought restitution after her offender was sentenced.
The dispute arose when M.S. appealed the trial court's decision not to award her restitution after her offender, Frederick Barnes, pleaded guilty to theft. M.S. initially filed a direct appeal but later dismissed it. After five years, she attempted to file a delayed appeal, which the Eighth District Court of Appeals denied, stating that the rules only allow defendants to seek delayed appeals.
The Ohio Supreme Court's ruling is significant because it affirms the lower court's decision and clarifies that victims do not have the same rights as defendants when it comes to appealing trial court decisions. This case highlights the complexities of victims' rights under Marsy’s Law, an amendment to the Ohio Constitution that grants certain rights to crime victims, including the right to restitution.
Background
The case began when Frederick Barnes was charged with breaking into M.S.'s office and stealing items, including a pistol and a nail gun. In October 2018, Barnes pleaded guilty to attempted breaking and entering and petty theft. At the sentencing hearing, the state requested restitution, but the trial court did not include it in the sentencing order.
After the trial court's decision, M.S. filed a direct appeal in December 2018, arguing that she was entitled to restitution under Marsy’s Law. However, she voluntarily dismissed her appeal in April 2019. M.S. later filed a complaint seeking a writ of mandamus, which the Eighth District partially granted, directing the trial court to determine her entitlement to restitution.
Despite the Eighth District's order, the case lingered in the trial court for several years due to various factors, including Barnes's attempts to withdraw his guilty plea. In 2022, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled in State v. Brasher that victims have the right to appeal a trial court's failure to award restitution. This ruling clarified that victims could file direct appeals under Marsy’s Law.
The Ruling
The Ohio Supreme Court, led by Justice Pat DeWine, ruled that M.S. could not file a delayed appeal. The court stated, "App.R. 5(A) explicitly limits the filing of delayed appeals to criminal defendants." The court emphasized that M.S. was not a defendant in the case and therefore did not qualify for a delayed appeal.
Justice DeWine further explained that the court could not rewrite the appellate rules to accommodate M.S.'s request. He noted, "We have no authority to bypass this constitutional procedure and simply amend those rules by judicial decision in an individual case." The ruling clarified that the existing rules regarding delayed appeals apply only to defendants and not to victims.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for crime victims in Ohio. It reinforces the limitations on victims' rights to appeal and highlights the need for legislative changes if victims wish to have the same rights as defendants in seeking delayed appeals. The court's decision underscores the importance of adhering to procedural rules and the challenges victims face when navigating the legal system.
The ruling also sets a precedent regarding the interpretation of Marsy’s Law and the rights it confers to victims. While the law grants victims certain rights, the court clarified that these rights do not extend to the ability to file delayed appeals. This distinction may prompt further discussions about the need for reforms to better protect victims' rights in the legal process.
What's Next
Following this ruling, it is unclear if M.S. or any other victims will seek to appeal this decision or pursue related cases. The Ohio General Assembly may consider legislative changes to address the rights of victims in the appellate process, but no specific proposals have been announced at this time.