State v. Cisco

2023 Ohio 3305

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: September 18, 2023
• Docket: 2023-L-082, 2023-L-083, 2023-L-084
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Cisco, 2023-Ohio-3305.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAKE COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, CASE NOS. 2023-L-082 CITY OF PAINESVILLE, 2023-L-083 2023-L-084 Plaintiff-Appellee, Criminal Appeals from the - vs - Painesville Municipal Court

CHRISTOPHER J. CISCO, Trial Court Nos. 2012 CRB 02686 A Defendant-Appellant. 2012 CRB 02686 B 2012 CRB 02686 C

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Decided: September 18, 2023 Judgment: Appeals dismissed

Joseph Hada, Painesville City Prosecutor, 1392 Som Center Road, Mayfield Heights, OH 44124 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).

Christopher J. Cisco, pro se, 901 Southwind Road, Springfield, IL 62703 (Defendant- Appellant).

MARY JANE TRAPP, J.

{¶1} On August 25, 2023, appellant, Christopher J. Cisco, pro se, filed a notice

of appeal from a January 18, 2023 entry denying his motion to seal his record and a

February 9, 2023 entry denying his motion to reconsider sealing of his record.

{¶2} A timely notice of appeal from the January 18, 2023 entry was due no later

than February 17, 2023, and a timely notice of appeal from the February 9, 2023 entry was due no later than March 13, 2023, which were not holidays or weekends. Both

appeals are untimely by over 5 months.

{¶3} “* * * [A] party who wishes to appeal from an order that is final upon its entry

shall file the notice of appeal required by App.R. 3 within 30 days of that entry.” App.R.

4(A)(1).

{¶4} Because the appeals were untimely filed, this court lacks jurisdiction. Thus,

the appeals are dismissed, sua sponte, as being untimely.

JOHN J. EKLUND, P.J.,

EUGENE A. LUCCI, J.,

concur.

Case Nos. 2023-L-082, 2023-L-083, 2023-L-084