State ex rel. Tyler v. Alexander

555 N.E.2d 966, 52 Ohio St. 3d 84, 1990 Ohio LEXIS 264
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedJune 27, 1990
DocketNo. 90-394
StatusPublished
Cited by55 cases

This text of 555 N.E.2d 966 (State ex rel. Tyler v. Alexander) 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
State ex rel. Tyler v. Alexander, 555 N.E.2d 966, 52 Ohio St. 3d 84, 1990 Ohio LEXIS 264 (Ohio 1990).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appellee argues that we have no jurisdiction over this appeal because the notice of appeal was not timely filed in the court of appeals. We agree.

Section 1(A), Rule I of the Supreme Court Rules of Practice plainly states: “The notice of appeal from a Court of Appeals must be filed in the court from which the case is appealed within thirty days from the entry of the judgment * * * appealed from * * Thirty days after December 29, 1989 was January 28, 1990. However, as that day was a Sunday, Tyler’s notice of appeal was due on January 29. See Rule XI, Supreme Court Rules of Practice.

Tyler argues, citing Houston v. Lack (1988), 487 U.S. 266, that when a prisoner acting pro se, seeks to appeal an adverse judgment, we should consider his notice of appeal “filed” when he turns it over to the prison authorities for mailing.

In Houston, the United States Supreme Court rested its holding on its interpretation of a federal statute and the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, and not on any constitutional provision. As such, it is not binding on us.

Nor do we find Houston persuasive. In Houston, Justice Scalia observed in dissent that the court’s interpretation of the phrase “filed with the clerk,” Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), to [85]*85mean “ ‘delivered to the warden of a prison’ ” was “remote from plain English.” Houston, supra, at 280. Similarly, we reject appellant’s suggestion that “filed in the court from which the case is appealed” really means “delivered to the prison mail room.”

The notice of appeal is jurisdictional. State, ex rel. Curran, v. Brookes (1943), 142 Ohio St. 107, 26 O.O. 287, 50 N.E. 2d 995, paragraph seven of the syllabus. Appellant failed to file it within the time specified in Section 1, Rule I. Thus, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Douglas, Wright, H. Brown and Resnick, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Fikes v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
Ohio Court of Appeals, 2026
Galloro v. SAR Hospitality, L.L.C.
2025 Ohio 2751 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2025)
Calo v. Stuff
2024 Ohio 5167 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2024)
Hill v. Black
N.D. Ohio, 2024
State v. Pitts
2023 Ohio 3545 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2023)
Mejia v. Watson
S.D. Ohio, 2023
State v. Boyd
2022 Ohio 4749 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2022)
Folley v. Foley
S.D. Ohio, 2022
Dowell v. Warden
S.D. Ohio, 2022
Jackson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
2021 Ohio 3901 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2021)
State v. Diaz
2021 Ohio 8 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2021)
State v. Smith
2020 Ohio 1370 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2020)
Charles M. Martin v. Department of Corrections
2018 ME 103 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2018)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
555 N.E.2d 966, 52 Ohio St. 3d 84, 1990 Ohio LEXIS 264, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-tyler-v-alexander-ohio-1990.