State v. Brown, Unpublished Decision (3-19-2004)

Ohio Court of Appeals

State v. Brown, Unpublished Decision (3-19-2004)

2004 Ohio 1433

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 19, 2004

DocketCase No. 2004-T-0001.

StatusUnpublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 2004 Ohio 1433 (State v. Brown, Unpublished Decision (3-19-2004)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law.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State v. Brown, Unpublished Decision (3-19-2004), 2004 Ohio 1433 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION {¶ 1} On January 2, 2004, appellant, Timothy Aarron Brown, filed a motion for leave to file a delayed appeal pursuant to App.R. 5(A). The appealed judgment is a November 10, 2003 decision of the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas denying Appellant's motion for judicial release.

{¶ 2} On January 5, 2004, appellee, State of Ohio, filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of a final appealable order.

{¶ 3} In State v. Coffman, 91 Ohio St.3d 125, the Supreme Court of Ohio expressly held that "a trial court's denial of shock probation is never a final appealable order." Id. at 126. Every appellate court in Ohio that has addressed this issue afterCoffman has held that that the same logic is applicable to a denial of a motion for judicial release since it mirrors shock probation. State v. Ingram, 10th Dist. No. 03AP-149, 2003-Ohio-5380; State v. Greene, 2nd Dist. No. 02-CA-17, 2002-Ohio-2595; State v. Galbreath (June 11, 2001), 12th Dist. No. CA2000-10-078, 2001 WL 649815. Since there is no right to judicial release, the denial of a motion for judicial release cannot affect a "substantial right" as that term is defined in R.C. 2505.02 (A)(1).

{¶ 4} Based upon the foregoing analysis, appellee's motion to dismiss this appeal is hereby granted. Appellant's motion for leave to file a delayed appeal is overruled.

{¶ 5} The appeal is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

O'Neill and Grendell, JJ., concur.

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION {¶ 1} On January 2, 2004, appellant, Timothy Aarron Brown, filed a motion for leave to file a delayed appeal pursuant to App.R. 5(A). The appealed judgment is a November 10, 2003 decision of the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas denying Appellant's motion for judicial release.

{¶ 2} On January 5, 2004, appellee, State of Ohio, filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of a final appealable order.

{¶ 3} In State v. Coffman, 91 Ohio St.3d 125, the Supreme Court of Ohio expressly held that "a trial court's denial of shock probation is never a final appealable order." Id. at 126. Every appellate court in Ohio that has addressed this issue afterCoffman has held that that the same logic is applicable to a denial of a motion for judicial release since it mirrors shock probation. State v. Ingram, 10th Dist. No. 03AP-149, 2003-Ohio-5380; State v. Greene, 2nd Dist. No. 02-CA-17, 2002-Ohio-2595; State v. Galbreath (June 11, 2001), 12th Dist. No. CA2000-10-078, 2001 WL 649815. Since there is no right to judicial release, the denial of a motion for judicial release cannot affect a "substantial right" as that term is defined in R.C. 2505.02 (A)(1).

{¶ 4} Based upon the foregoing analysis, appellee's motion to dismiss this appeal is hereby granted. Appellant's motion for leave to file a delayed appeal is overruled.

{¶ 5} The appeal is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

O'Neill and Grendell, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2004 Ohio 1433, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-brown-unpublished-decision-3-19-2004-ohioctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack