City of Cleveland v. Abraitis

Ohio Court of Appeals

City of Cleveland v. Abraitis

146 Ohio App. 3d 306

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 10, 2001

DocketNo. 78110

StatusPublished

This text of 146 Ohio App. 3d 306 (City of Cleveland v. Abraitis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of Cleveland v. Abraitis, 146 Ohio App. 3d 306 (Ohio Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Terrence O’Donnell, Judge.

Sarunas Abraitis appeals from a final judgment of conviction entered on April 12, 2000. Appellant filed a motion for reconsideration on April 14, 2000, which the trial court denied on May 15, 2000. Subsequently, on May 31, 2000, appellant filed a notice of appeal.

A motion for reconsideration is not provided for in the Rules of Criminal Procedure and is therefore a nullity and does not suspend the time for filing a notice of appeal. Accord, e.g., In re Grand Jury (June 1, 1995), Washington App. Nos. 93CA09 and 93CA10, 93CA12, unreported, 1995 WL 365386; State v. Marini (June 29, 1998), Tuscarawas App. Nos. 97 AP 020016 and 97 AP 120082, unreported, 1998 WL 429884; see, also, Pitts v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. (1981), 67 Ohio St.2d 378, 379-381, 21 0.0.3d 238, 423 N.E.2d 1105. Therefore, appellant has failed to file a timely notice of appeal pursuant to App.R. 4(A).

Appeal dismissed.

James D. Sweeney, P.J., and Ann Dyke, J., concur.

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

Terrence O’Donnell, Judge.

Sarunas Abraitis appeals from a final judgment of conviction entered on April 12, 2000. Appellant filed a motion for reconsideration on April 14, 2000, which the trial court denied on May 15, 2000. Subsequently, on May 31, 2000, appellant filed a notice of appeal.

A motion for reconsideration is not provided for in the Rules of Criminal Procedure and is therefore a nullity and does not suspend the time for filing a notice of appeal. Accord, e.g., In re Grand Jury (June 1, 1995), Washington App. Nos. 93CA09 and 93CA10, 93CA12, unreported, 1995 WL 365386; State v. Marini (June 29, 1998), Tuscarawas App. Nos. 97 AP 020016 and 97 AP 120082, unreported, 1998 WL 429884; see, also, Pitts v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. (1981), 67 Ohio St.2d 378, 379-381, 21 0.0.3d 238, 423 N.E.2d 1105. Therefore, appellant has failed to file a timely notice of appeal pursuant to App.R. 4(A).

Appeal dismissed.

James D. Sweeney, P.J., and Ann Dyke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

146 Ohio App. 3d 306, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-cleveland-v-abraitis-ohioctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack