State v. Forro
This text of 2022 Ohio 4691 (State v. Forro) 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.
Opinion
[Cite as State v. Forro, 2022-Ohio-4691.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PORTAGE COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 2022-P-0014
Plaintiff-Appellee, Criminal Appeal from the - vs - Court of Common Pleas
JAMES A. FORRO, Trial Court No. 2020 CR 00337 Defendant-Appellant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Decided: December 27, 2022 Judgment: Appeal dismissed
Victor V. Vigluicci, Portage County Prosecutor, and Theresa M. Scahill, Assistant Prosecutor, 241 South Chestnut Street, Ravenna, OH 44266 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
David V. Patton, 34194 Aurora Road, Suite 242, Solon, OH 44139 (For Defendant- Appellant).
MARY JANE TRAPP, J.
{¶1} Appellant, James A. Forro (“Mr. Forro”), appeals from a judgment entry of
the Portage County Court of Common Pleas that was issued following a hearing on Mr.
Forro’s motion to modify probation. The trial court denied his motion to modify, requested
additional medical documentation supporting Mr. Forro’s request to use medical
marijuana, and rescheduled the matter for another hearing in 30 days. Having no final
judgment in the matter, we dismiss for lack of a final appealable order.
Substantive and Procedural History
{¶2} Mr. Forro pleaded guilty to one count of menacing by stalking, a fourth-
degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2903.211(A)(1) and (B)(2)(b). The trial court sentenced him to five years community control with various conditions, one being to submit to
random substance abuse testing.
{¶3} Mr. Forro filed a motion to modify his probation, and the trial court held a
hearing on January 31, 2022. The trial court issued a judgment entry denying Mr. Forro’s
motion. In the same judgment entry, the court requested medical documentation to
support his request and rescheduled the matter for thirty days. Mr. Forro filed an appeal
from this January 31, 2022 judgment entry, which is the only appealed judgment before
us.
{¶4} After oral arguments, the state filed a motion to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction.
Analysis
{¶5} Our appellate jurisdiction is limited to reviewing judgments and orders that
are final, appealable orders. See Ohio Constitution, Article IV, Section 3(B)(2). In the
absence of a final, appealable order, an appellate court does not have jurisdiction to
review the matter and must dismiss the appeal. State v. Collins, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.
110994, 2022-Ohio-2143, ¶ 13. Therefore, we have a duty to examine, sua sponte,
potential deficiencies in jurisdiction. Id.
{¶6} R.C. 2505.02(B) defines the types of orders that constitute a final
appealable order:
{¶7} “(1) An order that affects a substantial right in an action that in effect
determines the action and prevents a judgment;
{¶8} “(2) An order that affects a substantial right made in a special proceeding or
upon a summary application in an action after judgment;
{¶9} “(3) An order that vacates or sets aside a judgment or grants a new trial; 2
Case No. 2022-P-0014 {¶10} “(4) An order that grants or denies a provisional remedy and to which both
of the following apply:
{¶11} “(a) The order in effect determines the action with respect to the provisional
remedy and prevents a judgment in the action in favor of the appealing party with respect
to the provisional remedy.
{¶12} “(b) The appealing party would not be afforded a meaningful or effective
remedy by an appeal following final judgment as to all proceedings, issues, claims, and
parties in the action.
{¶13} “(5) An order that determines that an action may or may not be maintained
as a class action; * * *.”
{¶14} In criminal cases, pursuant to R.C. 2953.02, a court of appeals only
possesses jurisdiction to hear an appeal if it is from a “judgment or final order.”
{¶15} The appealed judgment entry in the instant case does not conform to any
of the criteria in R.C. 2505.02(B) for being a final appealable order. Furthermore, the
judgment entry contemplates a second hearing on the motion to modify probation and
orders Mr. Forro to submit additional evidence on the issue.
{¶16} Appeal dismissed.
JOHN J. EKLUND, P.J.,
JAMES A. BROGAN, J., Ret., Second Appellate District, sitting by assignment,
concur.
Case No. 2022-P-0014
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2022 Ohio 4691, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-forro-ohioctapp-2022.