Does Ohio's App. R. 26(B)(1) violate the 6th Amendment by applying a time limit to reopen an appeal when an applicant has proven counsel error in not performing an Anders review?

Question Presented The State of Ohio has created a rule to reopen an appeal. It.is Ohio App. R. 26 (B). In (B)(1) of that rule it applies a time limit to reopening of an appeal even when the applicant has proven, that due to counsels error, the procedural safeguards found in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 and Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988) were not followed. This Court ruled that the failure to perform an Anders review is unconstitutional and the appeal left unadjudicated. Hvitts v. Lucy, 469 : US. 387, 396-397. It forces appellants to represent themselves on direct appeal, via the Application to reopen process, as they have been denied the benefit of counsel reviewing the merits of the case on direct appeal, in direct violation of the 6 Amendment to the United States Constitution and stare decisis. . The question presented is, Does Ohio's App. R. 26 (B)(1) violate the 6 Amendment of the United States Constitution by applying a time limit to when an applicant can file to reopen an appeal when an applicant has proven, that due to counsel error, a review of the -legal merits of the case on direct appeal, as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S..738 and Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, was never performed?