State v. Forro
This text of 2023 Ohio 4600 (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, 2023-Ohio-4600.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PORTAGE COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 2023-P-0022
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 18, 2023 Judgment: Appeal dismissed
Victor V. Vigluicci, Portage County 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 the judgment entry of
the Portage County Court of Common Pleas denying his “Motion for a Final Appealable
Order of Defendant’s Motion to Modify Probation.” An appeal of that judgment entry,
however, does not allow us to consider the trial court’s denial of his motion to modify
community control. Further, it does not determine and/or affect a substantial right of the
parties or allow us to provide any type of relief or remedy. Thus, 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 of community control with various conditions, one being to submit to
random substance abuse testing.
{¶3} Mr. Forro filed a motion to modify the terms of his community control to
permit him to use medical marijuana. Following a hearing on January 31, 2022, the trial
court issued a judgment entry denying his motion, requesting medical documentation to
support his request, and rescheduling the matter for 30 days.
{¶4} Mr. Forro filed an appeal from the January 31, 2022 judgment entry, which
we dismissed for lack of a final appealable order on December 27, 2022. In that opinion,
we determined that the appealed judgment entry contemplated a second hearing on the
motion to modify community control and that it ordered Mr. Forro to submit additional
medical documentation evidence to support his request. State v. Forro, 11th Dist.
Portage No. 2022-P-0014, 2022-Ohio-4691, ¶ 15.
{¶5} On March 11, 2022, while Mr. Forro’s first appeal was pending, the trial
court held the second hearing on his motion to modify community control. The trial court
found Mr. Forro “failed to provide appropriate medical documentation as instructed.”
Because he tested positive for THC on the day of the second hearing, the trial court
ordered him to be taken into custody and held pending a hearing on a motion to revoke
his community control triggered by the positive drug test. No appeal was taken from that
March 11, 2022 judgment entry.
Case No. 2023-P-0022 {¶6} On December 29, 2022, i.e., two days after we dismissed Mr. Forro’s first
appeal, he filed a “Motion for a Final, Appealable Order for Defendant’s Motion to Modify
Probation.” The trial court denied that motion on March 29, 2023, stating the “Court has
already ruled on all outstanding motions and provided judgment entries. There is nothing
additional for the Court to rule on that has not already been provided.” A notice of appeal,
which is the subject of the instant opinion, was taken from that judgment entry on April
21, 2023.
{¶7} We ordered both parties to submit briefing to the court on the issue of
whether the March 11, 2022 judgment entry denying Mr. Forro’s motion to modify
community control was a final appealable order.
{¶8} Accordingly, Mr. Forro filed a “Brief Regarding Trial Court’s March 11, 2022
Judgment Entry.” The state did not file a brief. In his brief, Mr. Forro contends the March
11, 2022 judgment entry was not a final appealable order because it did not address
and/or dispose of his motion to modify probation.
Analysis
{¶9} We disagree. Contrary to Mr. Forro’s argument, the March 11, 2022
judgment entry disposed of his motion to modify community control by denying it after he
failed to provide medical documentation. He cannot now attempt to bootstrap an appeal
from the trial court’s March 11, 2022 judgment entry denying his motion to modify
community control by appealing the March 29, 2023 judgment entry denying his motion
for a final appealable order. An appeal of the March 29, 2023 judgment entry does not
allow us to consider the merits of the trial court’s March 11, 2022 denial of his motion to
modify community control. Further, the March 29, 2023 judgment entry is not a final,
Case No. 2023-P-0022 appealable order because it does not determine and/or affect a substantial right of the
parties or allow us to provide any type of relief or remedy.
{¶10} 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. Forro at ¶ 5. Therefore, we have a duty
to examine, sua sponte, potential deficiencies in jurisdiction. Id.
{¶11} R.C. 2505.02(B) defines the types of orders that constitute a final
appealable order:
{¶12} “(1) An order that affects a substantial right in an action that in effect
determines the action and prevents a judgment;
{¶13} “(2) An order that affects a substantial right made in a special proceeding or
upon a summary application in an action after judgment;
{¶14} “(3) An order that vacates or sets aside a judgment or grants a new trial;
{¶15} “(4) An order that grants or denies a provisional remedy and to which both
of the following apply:
{¶16} “(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.
{¶17} “(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.
Case No. 2023-P-0022 {¶18} “(5) An order that determines that an action may or may not be maintained
as a class action; * * *.”
{¶19} 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.”
{¶20} 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.
{¶21} Appeal dismissed.
JOHN J. EKLUND, P.J.,
EUGENE A. LUCCI, J.,
concur.
Case No. 2023-P-0022
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2023 Ohio 4600, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-forro-ohioctapp-2023.