City of Lakewood v. Zingale, Unpublished Decision (1-26-2006)

Ohio Court of Appeals

City of Lakewood v. Zingale, Unpublished Decision (1-26-2006)

2006 Ohio 301

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 26, 2006

DocketNos. 86401, 86402.

StatusUnpublished

This text of 2006 Ohio 301 (City of Lakewood v. Zingale, Unpublished Decision (1-26-2006)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law.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City of Lakewood v. Zingale, Unpublished Decision (1-26-2006), 2006 Ohio 301 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, James C. Zingale, pled no contest to physical control of a motor vehicle while intoxicated and driving while under suspension after the trial court denied his motion to suppress. The charges were brought under two separate cases, which were later consolidated. In four assignments of error, appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. For the reasons stated below, we dismiss the appeal for lack of a finable appealable order.

{¶ 2} Appellant has attached three entries (the entry denying his motion to suppress and a sentencing entry for each of the two cases) from the Lakewood Municipal Court as the judgments from which he attempts to appeal. While these entries were journalized, they were never file-stamped by the trial court clerk. The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that a reviewing court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to reach the merits in an appeal from a judgment entry that has not been file-stamped by the trial court clerk. State v. Domers (1991),61 Ohio St.3d 592, 575 N.E.2d 832. See, also, Kovach v. Callahan (Dec. 23, 1999), Cuyahoga App. No. 75189; Cleveland Heights v. Jones (Jan. 26, 1995), Cuyahoga App. No. 65990; Steingel v. Waiwood (Jan. 12, 1995), Cuyahoga App. No. 66813.

{¶ 3} Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

{¶ 4} This appeal is dismissed.

It is, therefore, ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.

It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to the Lakewood Municipal Court directing said court to carry this judgment into execution.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Gallagher, P.J., and Blackmon, J., concur.

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

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, James C. Zingale, pled no contest to physical control of a motor vehicle while intoxicated and driving while under suspension after the trial court denied his motion to suppress. The charges were brought under two separate cases, which were later consolidated. In four assignments of error, appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. For the reasons stated below, we dismiss the appeal for lack of a finable appealable order.

{¶ 2} Appellant has attached three entries (the entry denying his motion to suppress and a sentencing entry for each of the two cases) from the Lakewood Municipal Court as the judgments from which he attempts to appeal. While these entries were journalized, they were never file-stamped by the trial court clerk. The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that a reviewing court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to reach the merits in an appeal from a judgment entry that has not been file-stamped by the trial court clerk. State v. Domers (1991),61 Ohio St.3d 592, 575 N.E.2d 832. See, also, Kovach v. Callahan (Dec. 23, 1999), Cuyahoga App. No. 75189; Cleveland Heights v. Jones (Jan. 26, 1995), Cuyahoga App. No. 65990; Steingel v. Waiwood (Jan. 12, 1995), Cuyahoga App. No. 66813.