I get letters now and then from inmates who want me to do their appeal (I assume for free because they don't talk about where the money is coming from to pay my legal fees), and they start out by telling me they are "innocent." Maybe that is supposed to persuade me to take on their case. But what does innocence have to do with appealing a criminal conviction or sentence?
There is no "assigned error" on appeal that says, "please reverse my client's conviction because he is innocent." It does not exist on direct appeal. What you argue instead is how the conviction is "against the manifest weight of the evidence" or that the conviction it is not based upon "sufficient evidence." It is all about "evidence," not "innocence."
Haven't we all heard about people released from prison because it turned out they were innocent? What stopped them from being convicted? Nothing! There was sufficient evidence and their conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Sometimes there are eye witnesses and even "confessions."
Innocent people are sometimes convicted and guilty people sometimes go free. So what does guilt or innocence have to do with it?
Innocence has nothing to do with the direct appeal. The guilty and innocent have the same tools at their disposal on appeal. What you have to raise are legal issues that can win a reversal of your conviction or sentence. Maybe there are none. Then you lose your appeal. But if there are reversible errors you can point out to the Court of Appeals, you could get your conviction or sentence reversed - whether you actually did the crime or not.
It is not about "innocence" or guilt on direct appeal, so don't bother telling me you are "innocent."
(But check out R.C. 2953.21 regarding petitions for postconviction relief where "actual innocence" is relevant.)
