Pesci v. Goodrich

Ohio Supreme Court

Pesci v. Goodrich

2012 Ohio 4540, 977 N.E.2d 628, 133 Ohio St. 3d 227

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 3, 2012

Docket2012-0987

StatusPublished

This text of 2012 Ohio 4540 (Pesci v. Goodrich) 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

Pesci v. Goodrich, 2012 Ohio 4540, 977 N.E.2d 628, 133 Ohio St. 3d 227 (Ohio 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We dismiss the appeal of appellant, James Pesci, from the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus because he failed to file a timely notice of appeal from the judgment. S.CtPrac.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”). Pesci’s Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment did not extend his time to appeal the judgment, and Pesci could not use Civ.R. 60(B) as a substitute for a timely appeal. State ex rel. Manuel v. Stenson, 126 Ohio St.3d 52, 2010-Ohio-2673, 930 N.E.2d 310, citing State ex rel. Martin v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 124 Ohio St.3d 63, 2009-Ohio-6164, 918 N.E.2d 1005.

Appeal dismissed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, Cupp, and McGee Brown, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We dismiss the appeal of appellant, James Pesci, from the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus because he failed to file a timely notice of appeal from the judgment. S.CtPrac.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”). Pesci’s Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment did not extend his time to appeal the judgment, and Pesci could not use Civ.R. 60(B) as a substitute for a timely appeal. State ex rel. Manuel v. Stenson, 126 Ohio St.3d 52, 2010-Ohio-2673, 930 N.E.2d 310, citing State ex rel. Martin v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 124 Ohio St.3d 63, 2009-Ohio-6164, 918 N.E.2d 1005.

Appeal dismissed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, Cupp, and McGee Brown, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2012 Ohio 4540, 977 N.E.2d 628, 133 Ohio St. 3d 227, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pesci-v-goodrich-ohio-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack