State v. Beauregard, Unpublished Decision (7-21-2005)

Ohio Court of Appeals

State v. Beauregard, Unpublished Decision (7-21-2005)

2005 Ohio 3722

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 21, 2005

DocketNos. 85402, 85403, 85404, 85405.

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2005 Ohio 3722 (State v. Beauregard, Unpublished Decision (7-21-2005)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law.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

State v. Beauregard, Unpublished Decision (7-21-2005), 2005 Ohio 3722 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

JOURNAL ENTRY and OPINION {¶ 1} The state appeals from a dismissal of four separate criminal indictments on grounds that it failed to produce at a pretrial an out-of-state witness. We dismiss the appeal for want of a final, appealable order because the order itself is considered to be without prejudice. See City of Fairview Park v. Fleming (Dec. 7, 2000), Cuyahoga App. Nos. 77323 and 77324 (dismissal of a criminal complaint cannot be considered a proceeding ancillary to the action; therefore, the dismissal of a criminal complaint, without prejudice, is not a final order, and the court lacks jurisdiction to consider it); State v. Steel, Cuyahoga App. No. 85076, 2005-Ohio-2623 at ¶ 6.

{¶ 2} This appeal is dismissed.

It is, therefore, ordered that appellees recover of appellant their costs herein taxed.

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Common Pleas 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.

Calabrese, Jr., P.J., Kilbane, J., Concur.

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

JOURNAL ENTRY and OPINION {¶ 1} The state appeals from a dismissal of four separate criminal indictments on grounds that it failed to produce at a pretrial an out-of-state witness. We dismiss the appeal for want of a final, appealable order because the order itself is considered to be without prejudice. See City of Fairview Park v. Fleming (Dec. 7, 2000), Cuyahoga App. Nos. 77323 and 77324 (dismissal of a criminal complaint cannot be considered a proceeding ancillary to the action; therefore, the dismissal of a criminal complaint, without prejudice, is not a final order, and the court lacks jurisdiction to consider it); State v. Steel, Cuyahoga App. No. 85076, 2005-Ohio-2623 at ¶ 6.