Brock v. Moore

2013 Ohio 70, 985 N.E.2d 465, 135 Ohio St. 3d 188
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 17, 2013
Docket2012-1716
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 2013 Ohio 70 (Brock v. Moore) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Brock v. Moore, 2013 Ohio 70, 985 N.E.2d 465, 135 Ohio St. 3d 188 (Ohio 2013).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We dismiss the appeal of appellant, Dennis R. Brock, from the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Brock failed to file a timely notice of appeal from the court of appeals’ July 5, 2012 judgment dismissing his petition. Former S.Ct.Prac.R. 2.2(A)(1)(a) (“To perfect an appeal from a court of appeals to the Supreme Court, * * * the appellant shall file a notice of appeal in the Supreme Court within forty-five days from the entry of the judgment being appealed”) (now S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.01(A)(1)(a)®, effective January 1, 2013). The court of appeals’ August 6, 2012 entry striking Brock’s motion for reconsideration and motion for certification due to lack of service and September 20, 2012 entry denying Brock’s motion for review of judgment did not extend his time to appeal the judgment dismissing his habeas corpus petition. State ex rel. Manuel v. Stenson, 126 Ohio St.3d 52, 2010-Ohio-2673, 930 N.E.2d 310. 2 Moreover, Brock’s motion for reconsideration was a nullity because his habeas corpus petition was an original action in the court of appeals, and thus App.R. 26(A) was inapplicable. Phillips v. Irwin, 96 Ohio St.3d 350, 2002-Ohio-4758, 774 N.E.2d 1218, ¶ 5.

{¶ 2} In addition, upon appellee’s request, we find Dennis R. Brock to be a vexatious litigator under S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.03(B). See State v. Brock, 120 Ohio St.3d 1421, 2008-Ohio-6166, 897 N.E.2d 654; State v. Brock, 122 Ohio St.3d 1457, 2009-Ohio-3131, 908 N.E.2d 947; State v. Brock, 129 Ohio St.3d 1410, 2011-Ohio-3244, 949 N.E.2d 1005; State v. Brock, 128 Ohio St.3d 1513, 2011-Ohio-2686, 948 N.E.2d 449; Brock v. Niemeyer, 130 Ohio St.3d 80, 2011-Ohio-4704, 955 N.E.2d 981. Accordingly, it is ordered by the court that Dennis R. Brock is prohibited from continuing or instituting legal proceedings in this court without first obtaining leave. Any request shall be submitted to the clerk of this court for the court’s review.

Appeal dismissed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, Kennedy, French, and O’Neill, JJ., concur. *190 Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Stephanie Watson, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
2

. We deny Brock’s pending motions as moot.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ohio Atty. Gen. v. Brock
2015 Ohio 4173 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2015)
State ex rel. Manley v. Walsh (Slip Opinion)
2014 Ohio 4563 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2013 Ohio 70, 985 N.E.2d 465, 135 Ohio St. 3d 188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brock-v-moore-ohio-2013.