2012-Ohio-587, 2012 WL 504504, at ¶ 24, the majority opinion divided Broom’s allegations into two categories: injuries allegedly sustained as a result of the state’s following its execution protocol and injuries allegedly sustained as a result of the state’s deviating from its execution protocol. Treating the first category as a facial challenge to Ohio’s execution protocol, the court of appeals rejected the challenge as untimely. Id. at ¶ 31 and 34. The court also cited federal-court decisions affirming the constitutionality of state lethal-injection protocols. Id. at ¶ 35, citing Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35, 128 S.Ct. 1520, 170 L.Ed.2d 420 (2008) (plurality opinion) (affirming Kentucky’s three-drug execution protocol); Cooey v. Strickland, 589 F.3d 210, 227-228 (6th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). {¶ 33} The Eighth District then separately
holding that the crossappeal time limit is jurisdictional holding that the failure to impose a time limit on the search for accessible veins did not make ohios protocol unconstitutional holding that time limit for filing petition for review is mandatory and jurisdictional holding that search of appellants suitcase found on the floor next to the couch on which he was sleeping was an unconstitutional search of his person and was not authorized by a search of the residence holding that the circuit judge did not have the authority to extend the thirtyday time limit for filing a notice of appeal