A Muskingum County man who argued that his lawyer had a conflict of interest — thereby depriving him of a fair trial — will not receive review from the Supreme Court of Ohio.
In a short entry dated February 17, 2026, the Court denied Marques Parker’s request to file a delayed appeal and dismissed his case. Parker filed both the request to extend the deadline and the appeal without the assistance of an attorney. The dismissal leaves in place a November 3, 2025 decision from the Fifth District Court of Appeals, which upheld Parker’s conviction following a no-contest plea in a drug-trafficking case.
From Co-Defendant’s Acquittal to Parker’s Conviction
Parker was arrested after officers were called to a home for possible breaking and entering. Officers surrounded the home and detained six individuals. Parker was not among them.
In the home, officers found 225 grams of fentanyl and tools to manufacture illegal drugs as well as Parker’s identification, phone, and fingerprints. Detectives later arrested Parker.
Parker and a co-defendant, Adrianna Gibson, were charged in the same indictment. Gibson went to trial first and was acquitted by a jury. After her case concluded, Parker hired the same attorney who had represented Gibson.
During the pretrial phase, that lawyer challenged evidence in Parker’s case and represented him at a hearing. When the trial court denied the request to exclude that evidence, Parker entered a no-contest plea and was sentenced.
On appeal, Parker argued that his attorney’s earlier representation of Gibson created a conflict of interest. He claimed the lawyer should not have represented both defendants in related cases and that this prior involvement affected his defense. He also argued that the trial judge should have examined the issue before accepting his plea.
The Fifth District Court of Appeals disagreed. The decision noted that the attorney’s work for Gibson had ended more than a year before Parker’s proceedings began, and that Parker made the choice to hire that attorney. The court found nothing in the record showing that the prior representation affected the lawyer’s performance or changed the outcome of Parker’s case. It also concluded that Parker’s plea was properly entered and that the trial court followed required procedures.
With that, the conviction was affirmed.
A 45-Day Deadline and a Letter Sent to the Wrong Prison
After the appellate court issued its decision on November 3, 2025, Parker’s appellate attorney sent him a letter enclosing the ruling and informing him that he had 45 days to ask the Ohio Supreme Court to review the case.
The letter was dated November 5, 2025. According to Parker, the letter did not reach him right away. In his motion to the Supreme Court, Parker said the decision had been mailed to the wrong address, and he did not receive it until about November 14. He enclosed a photo of the label his appellate lawyer addressed to the wrong correctional facility.
The 45-day deadline, however, began running from November 3, the date of the appellate decision. On December 22, 2025, 4 days after the 45-day deadline, Parker filed both his notice of appeal and a request for permission to file it late. He explained that he acted promptly once he received the decision and that the delay was due to the mailing error.
But on February 17, 2026, the Ohio Supreme Court denied his request for permission to file a delayed appeal. The decision was without explanation, and the case was dismissed.
Questions of Knowledge and Representation
At the center of Parker’s original appeal was a question about whether it was appropriate for one lawyer to represent two defendants in related proceedings, even at different times. The appellate court concluded that the record did not show any harm. The court noted that they were unable to find any evidence that a conflict existed in this instance.
Although Parker hired his attorney after his co-defendant’s acquittal, it is unclear how much he understood about the potential implications of that prior representation or whether he appreciated the need to raise a formal objection at the suppression hearing. Legal conflicts are technical, and it is an attorney’s responsibility to identify and disclose them to potential clients. The court noted that no objection was made, but the record does not reveal how sophisticated Parker was in navigating those concerns.
By the time he sought review in the Ohio Supreme Court, Parker was representing himself from prison and did not have the funds to pay filing fees. His request for delayed consideration was handwritten, and his motion for appeal to the Supreme Court appeared to be typed on a typewriter. In the end, both his conflict-of-interest argument and his attempt to obtain further review turned on procedural requirements that demand familiarity with legal rules, deadlines, and institutional processes. Because he failed to meet the deadline to request an extension, his case was dismissed and not considered for review by the Supreme Court.