[Cite as State v. Blacker,
2025-Ohio-526.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
State of Ohio, :
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
No. 24AP-546
v. : (C.P.C. No. 21CR-0993)
Nathanial Blacker, : (REGULAR CALENDAR)
Defendant-Appellant. :
D E C I S I O N
Rendered on February 18, 2025
On brief: [Shayla D. Favor], Prosecuting Attorney, and
Sheryl L. Prichard, for appellee.
On brief: Nathaniel Blacker, pro se.
APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas
EDELSTEIN, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Nathanial Blacker, appeals from the August 6, 2024
entry of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas denying his “Motion For Court To
Issue Proper Notice of April 8, 2024 Entry.” Because we find the trial court properly denied
his motion, we affirm the judgment below.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW
{¶ 2} On July 18, 2024, Mr. Blacker, pro se, filed a motion for leave to file a delayed
appeal under App.R. 5(A) from the April 8, 2024 judgment of the Franklin County Court of
Common Pleas denying his petition for postconviction relief. In his motion, he claimed he
did not receive the trial court’s April 8th judgment entry until the time for filing an appeal
had already expired. On September 12, 2024, this court issued a memorandum decision
denying Mr. Blacker’s motion for leave to file a delayed appeal. In our decision, we first
concluded that Mr. Blacker had appealed from the denial of a petition for postconviction
No. 24AP-546 2
relief, which we deemed civil in nature. Second, we concluded that because Mr. Blacker’s
appeal was civil in nature, App.R. 5(A) was not available to Mr. Blacker as an avenue for
filing a delayed appeal. (See Sept. 12, 2024 Memo Decision at ¶ 4-5.) Therefore, we denied
Mr. Blacker’s motion for leave to file a delayed appeal from the trial court’s April 8, 2024
entry. (Sept. 12, 2024 Memo Decision at ¶ 5.)
{¶ 3} On July 18, 2024, while his motion for leave to file a delayed appeal was
pending, Mr. Blacker also filed the motion that is the subject of this appeal. In his motion,
Mr. Blacker asserted he never received a copy of the April 8, 2024 entry denying his petition
for postconviction relief. Because he had not received a copy of the entry and due to the
expiration of the 30-day time frame for filing a timely appeal, Mr. Blacker asked the trial
court to “issue a proper notice of the April 8, 2024 entry so that [he could] file a timely
appeal.” (July 18, 2024 Mot. for Ct. to Issue Proper Notice of April 8, 2024 Entry at 3.)
{¶ 4} On August 6, 2024, the trial court denied Mr. Blacker’s motion. In so doing,
the court concluded the motion lacked merit because (1) the April 8th entry provided for
service upon Mr. Blacker, (2) by letter dated June 11, 2024, the Franklin County Clerk of
Courts provided Mr. Blacker another copy of the same entry, and (3) Mr. Blacker filed an
appeal from the entry on June 21, 2024. (Aug. 6, 2024 Entry.)
{¶ 5} Mr. Blacker now appeals from that decision and asserts a sole assignment of
error for our review:
THE COMMON PLEAS COURT ABUSED IT’S DISCRETION
WHEN IT DID NOT HOLD AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING
AND SET ASIDE AND RE-ENTERED THE JUDGMENT
ENTRY SO THAT APPELLANT COULD APPEAL FROM THE
COMMONS PLEAS COURT’S APRIL 8, 2024 JUDGMENT
ENTRY.
(Sic. passim.)1
II. ANALYSIS
A. Mr. Blacker’s Sole Assignment of Error
{¶ 6} Mr. Blacker missed his deadline for filing a direct appeal of the trial court’s
entry denying his petition for postconviction relief. He claims he was unable to meet the
1 On January 15, 2025, after briefing concluded, Mr. Blacker also filed a motion to reopen his appeal pursuant
to App.R. 26(B).
No. 24AP-546 3
filing deadline because he did not receive a copy of the trial court’s entry until he requested
one after the deadline had lapsed. As a result, Mr. Blacker asked the trial court to reissue
its April 8, 2024 decision in order to restart his clock for filing a timely appeal. (See July 18,
2024 Mot. for Ct. to Issue Proper Notice of April 8, 2024 Entry at 1 (“The defendant moves
this Court for relief from its April 8, 2024 entry by issuing proper notice to him so that he
can file a timely appeal.”).)
{¶ 7} The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mr. Blacker’s request.
Although Mr. Blacker asserts he is entitled to his requested relief because he did not receive
actual notice of the trial court’s April 8, 2024 entry, Ohio law does not provide a procedural
mechanism for a trial court to reissue a civil entry in order to restart the clock for filing a
timely appeal.
{¶ 8} We note, however, that because we have already concluded the underlying
trial court proceedings in this matter are civil in nature, they are subject to App.R. 4(A)(3),
which states, “In a civil case, if the clerk has not completed service of notice of the judgment
within the three-day period described in Civ.R. 58(B), the 30-day periods referenced in
App.R. 4(A)(1) and 4(A)(2) begin to run on the date when the clerk actually completes
service.” Pursuant to Civ.R. 58(B), “[u]pon serving the notice and notation of the service in
the appearance docket, the service is complete.” Only once a clerk has served notice of an
entry and entered the appropriate notation on the docket, “the notice shall be deemed to
have been served.” Atkinson v. Grumman Ohio Corp., 37 Ohio St.3d 80 (1998), paragraph
two of the syllabus. See also State ex rel. Sautter v. Grey,
2008-Ohio-1444, ¶ 9-17.
Therefore, where “there is nothing to indicate that the clerk served the parties, and service
is not noted in the appearance docket,” it is accordingly not deemed served and the time for
filing a notice of appeal has not yet run. Perrucci v. Whittington,
2018-Ohio-2968, ¶ 8. See
also State v. R.L.W.,
2024-Ohio-1249, ¶ 7-8 (10th Dist.); State ex rel. Delmonte v.
Woodmere,
2004-Ohio-2340, ¶ 3 (8th Dist.); In re E.S.,
2020-Ohio-4405, ¶ 24-25 (5th
Dist.).
{¶ 9} As of the time of this decision, service of the April 8, 2024 entry that Mr.
Blacker seeks to appeal was not noted on the docket for case No. 21CR-0993. While we are
unable to provide any relief in the instant appeal, it appears the time for filing a direct
No. 24AP-546 4
appeal from the trial court’s April 8, 2024 entry has not actually begun to run because
service has not been noted on the docket. See App.R. 4(A)(3); Civ.R. 58(B).
{¶ 10} Having found the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mr.
Blacker’s July 18, 2024 motion, we overrule Mr. Blacker’s sole assignment of error.
B. Mr. Blacker’s January 15, 2025 Application to Reopen His Appeal
{¶ 11} On January 15, 2025, Mr. Blacker filed a motion to reopen his appeal
pursuant to App.R. 26(B) under case No. 24AP-546, claiming he received ineffective
assistance of appellate counsel. He raises two claims: (1) his appellate counsel was deficient
for failing “to challenge the trial court[’]s failure to give factual findings and conclusions
and legal conclusions when it overruled the Appellant’s amended motion to dismiss”
(Jan. 15, 2025 Mot. to Reopen Pursuant to App.R. 26(B) at 3); and (2) his appellate counsel
was deficient for failing to address trial counsel’s ineffectiveness “in not removing himself
after a conflict of interest” (Jan. 15, 2025 Mot. at 6).
{¶ 12} Pursuant to App.R. 26(B)(1), “[a] defendant in a criminal case or a delinquent
child in a juvenile case may apply for reopening of the appeal from the judgment of
conviction and sentence or a judgment of adjudication or disposition based on a claim of
ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.” The rule further states that “[a]n 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.” App.R. 26(B)(1).
{¶ 13} Mr. Blacker filed his motion under the instant case number, yet we have not
rendered a decision and Mr. Blacker has not been represented by appellate counsel in this
matter. As such, we conclude a motion under App.R. 26(B) is both premature (because the
appeal remains open and a decision has not yet been rendered) and meritless (because a
claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel cannot stand where Mr. Blacker has not
been represented by counsel in this matter). We therefore deny Mr. Blacker’s motion to
reopen his appeal.
No. 24AP-546 5
III. CONCLUSION
{¶ 14} Having overruled Mr. Blacker’s sole assignment of error and denied his
January 15, 2025 motion to reopen his appeal under App.R. 26(B), we affirm the August 6,
2024 judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.
Judgment affirmed;
motion to reopen appeal denied.
JAMISON, P.J. and MENTEL, J., concur.
