State v. Hernandez-Reynoso, Unpublished Decision (11-18-2005)

2005 Ohio 6157
Ohio Court of Appeals·Decided November 18, 2005·No. No. 2005-L-149.·Unpublished

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION
{¶ 1} On September 13, 2005, appellant, Santiago A. Hernandez-Reynoso, filed a motion for leave to file a delayed appeal in this criminal matter. However, appellant failed to simultaneously file a notice of appeal as is required by App.R. 5(A).

{¶ 2} The provisions of App.R. 5(A) are mandatory and jurisdictional.State v. Fisher (1975), 46 Ohio App.2d 279, 280. Accordingly, this court has no choice but to overrule appellant's motion for leave to file a delayed appeal.

{¶ 3} We note that appellant is not precluded form filing another motion for leave to file a delayed appeal in addition to a proper notice of appeal that complies with all applicable appellate rules.

{¶ 4} Appeal dismissed.

Rice, J., O'Toole, J., concur.

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

State v. Hernandez-Reynoso, Unpublished Decision (11-18-2005), 2005 Ohio 6157 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005).

2005 Ohio 6157 (State v. Hernandez-Reynoso, Unpublished Decision (11-18-2005)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Fisher
349 N.E.2d 327 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1975)