State v. Boyd

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. Boyd

282 N.E.2d 366, 30 Ohio St. 2d 64, 59 Ohio Op. 2d 84, 1972 Ohio LEXIS 466

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided May 3, 1972·No. No. 71-587·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Had the foregoing events occurred after July 1, 1971, when App. R. 4(B)¹ became effective, [65] the present controversy would not have arisen. However, appellant contends that the rule is nonetheless applicable because appellee did not move to dismiss the appeal until July 6, 1971. "We find it unnecessary to resolve that contention.

Unlike the former procedure in civil matters, wherein all judgments and orders must be entered upon the journal (see R. C. 2323.22, repealed, effective July 1, 1971, and Civ. R. 58), neither the present statutes (R. C. 2947.05 and 2947.07²) nor the proposed Criminal Rules (see Proposed Crim. R. 32 [XLV Ohio Bar, No. 13, March 27, 1972, pages 443, 444]) contain language vitiating the conclusion that the pronouncement of a sentence in open court, upon conviction, is then and there an act of the court which needs no formalization by a journal entry before an appeal may be perfected therefrom.

Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals dismissing the appeal therein is reversed and the cause is remanded to that court for further proceedings according to law.

Judgment reversed.

O’Neill, C. J., Schneider,, Herbert, Corrigan, Stern, Leach and Brown, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

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

Per Curiam.

Had the foregoing events occurred after July 1, 1971, when App. R. 4(B)¹ became effective, [65] the present controversy would not have arisen. However, appellant contends that the rule is nonetheless applicable because appellee did not move to dismiss the appeal until July 6, 1971. "We find it unnecessary to resolve that contention.

Unlike the former procedure in civil matters, wherein all judgments and orders must be entered upon the journal (see R. C. 2323.22, repealed, effective July 1, 1971, and Civ. R. 58), neither the present statutes (R. C. 2947.05 and 2947.07²) nor the proposed Criminal Rules (see Proposed Crim. R. 32 [XLV Ohio Bar, No. 13, March 27, 1972, pages 443, 444]) contain language vitiating the conclusion that the pronouncement of a sentence in open court, upon conviction, is then and there an act of the court which needs no formalization by a journal entry before an appeal may be perfected therefrom.

Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals dismissing the appeal therein is reversed and the cause is remanded to that court for further proceedings according to law.

Judgment reversed.

O’Neill, C. J., Schneider,, Herbert, Corrigan, Stern, Leach and Brown, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

State v. Boyd, 282 N.E.2d 366, 30 Ohio St. 2d 64, 59 Ohio Op. 2d 84, 1972 Ohio LEXIS 466 (Ohio 1972).

Pincite

282 N.E.2d 366 (State v. Boyd) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Footnotes

Related