State v. Jordan
This text of 2022 Ohio 563 (State v. Jordan) 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. Jordan, 2022-Ohio-563.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
BUTLER COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, :
Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2021-07-082
: OPINION - vs - 2/28/2022 :
FELIX C. JORDAN, :
Appellant. :
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. CR2021-02-0193
Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, and Michael Greer, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Lorraine M. Search, for appellant.
BYRNE, J.
{¶1} Felix C. Jordan appeals from his conviction in the Butler County Court of
Common Pleas for felony non-support. For the reasons described below, we dismiss this
appeal.
{¶2} In February 2021, a Butler County grand jury indicted Jordan on one count of
felony non-support of dependents. In June 2021, Jordan entered a guilty plea. On July 1, Butler CA2021-07-082
2021, Jordan appeared before the trial court for sentencing. The court sentenced Jordan
to a 12-month prison term, with credit for 50 days served. The court filed the judgment of
conviction entry the next day, July 2, 2021. On July 15, 2021, Jordan filed a notice of
appeal. The notice of appeal stated that the appeal was taken from Jordan's July 2, 2021,
judgment of conviction entry.
{¶3} One and one-half months later, on August 31, 2021, Jordan filed a pro se
motion for jail-time credit in the trial court. Jordan argued that he was entitled to an
additional 42 days of jail-time credit for time spent incarcerated in Texas. On October 11,
2021, the trial court issued a judgment entry denying Jordan's motion for jail-time credit.
The court attached a letter to the judgment entry which appeared to be signed by officials
from the Butler County probation division. The letter recommended that Jordan not receive
jail-time credit for his incarceration in Texas because he "was not available to our Court."
{¶4} Jordan raises the following as his sole assignment of error in this appeal.
{¶5} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO GIVE APPELLANT JAIL TIME
CREDIT FOR HIS TIME HELD IN TEXAS.
{¶6} Jordan argues that the trial court erred by failing to give him jail-time credit for
time he spent incarcerated in Texas prior to being sentenced in Butler County. In support,
he cites his motion for jail-time credit as well as its supporting affidavit. Jordan also
challenges the court's apparent reliance on the letter from the Butler County probation
division.
{¶7} Jordan filed his notice of appeal in this case before he filed his motion for jail-
time credit and before the entry denying that motion that Jordan claims was erroneously
decided. Furthermore, Jordan's notice of appeal specified that the final judgment rendered
on July 2, 2021, was the order or judgment from which Jordan appealed.
{¶8} The trial court's entry denying Jordan's motion for jail-time credit is a
-2- Butler CA2021-07-082
postjudgment order that is not within the scope of the noticed appeal. Because Jordan has
not filed a notice of appeal from the entry denying his motion for jail-time credit, this matter
is not properly before us. See State v. Davis, 166 Ohio App.3d 468, 2006-Ohio-1592, ¶ 54
(2d Dist.) (rejecting an assignment of error where the order complained of was issued after
the notice of appeal and the notice of appeal was taken from a different order). See also
State v. Shafer, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 79758, 2002-Ohio-6632, ¶ 76 (refusing to consider
potential error regarding journal entry that was filed after the filing date of the notice of
appeal). We may only consider arguments regarding matters that are properly before us in
compliance with App.R. 3(D) and 4. Shafer at id; In re England, 10th Dist. Franklin No.
92AP-1749, 1993 WL 179994, *6 (May 18, 1993). Because Jordan's sole assignment of
error concerns a judgment entry that was filed after the notice of appeal in this case and is
not within the scope of the noticed appeal, we must dismiss Jordan's appeal.
{¶9} Appeal dismissed.
M. POWELL, P.J., and S. POWELL, J., concur.
-3-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2022 Ohio 563, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-jordan-ohioctapp-2022.