State v. Meloy, 2009-L-031 (5-15-2009)

Ohio Court of Appeals

State v. Meloy, 2009-L-031 (5-15-2009)

2009 Ohio 2301

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 15, 2009

DocketNo. 2009-L-031.

StatusPublished

This text of 2009 Ohio 2301 (State v. Meloy, 2009-L-031 (5-15-2009)) 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.

Bluebook

State v. Meloy, 2009-L-031 (5-15-2009), 2009 Ohio 2301 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION {¶ 1} On March 2, 2009, appellant, Timothy W. Meloy, pro se, filed his notice of appeal from a January 22, 2009 judgment issued by the Lake County Court of Common Pleas denying his motion for judicial release under R.C. 2929.20. Thus, the appeal was filed thirty-nine days after judgment was entered.

{¶ 2} Pursuant to Article IV, Section 3(B)(2), of the Ohio Constitution, appellate courts have jurisdiction to review, affirm, modify, or reverse judgments or final orders from *Page 2 courts of record inferior to the court of appeals and from final orders or actions of administrative officers or agencies.

{¶ 3} In State v. Coffman, 91 Ohio St.3d 125, 126, 2001-Ohio-273, the Supreme Court of Ohio expressly held that "a trial court's denial of a motion for shock probation is never a final appealable order." In addition, appellate courts in Ohio that have addressed this issue afterCoffman have held that the same logic is applicable to a denial of a motion for judicial release since it mirrors shock probation. State v.Woods (2001), 141 Ohio App.3d 549, 550; State v. Williams, 10th Dist. No. 07AP-1035, 2008-Ohio-1906, at ¶ 9; State v. Mayle, 5th Dist. Nos. 07-CA-0006 and 07-CA-0007, 2008-Ohio-3761, at ¶ 13; State v.Greene, 2d Dist. No. 02-CA-17, 2002-Ohio-2595, at ¶ 6.

{¶ 4} App. R. 4(A) states in relevant part:

{¶ 5} "A party shall file the notice of appeal required by App. R. 3 within thirty days of the later of entry of the judgment or order appealed * * *."

{¶ 6} Clearly, the appealed judgment denying appellant's motion for judicial

release is not a final appealable order. In addition, even if the judgment was a final appealable order, it is untimely since appellant filed his notice of appeal beyond the thirty-day requirement in App. R. 4(A).

{¶ 7} Therefore, this appeal is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

{¶ 8} Appeal dismissed.

MARY JANE TRAPP, P.J., TIMOTHY P. CANNON, J., concur. *Page 1

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION {¶ 1} On March 2, 2009, appellant, Timothy W. Meloy, pro se, filed his notice of appeal from a January 22, 2009 judgment issued by the Lake County Court of Common Pleas denying his motion for judicial release under R.C. 2929.20. Thus, the appeal was filed thirty-nine days after judgment was entered.

{¶ 2} Pursuant to Article IV, Section 3(B)(2), of the Ohio Constitution, appellate courts have jurisdiction to review, affirm, modify, or reverse judgments or final orders from *Page 2 courts of record inferior to the court of appeals and from final orders or actions of administrative officers or agencies.

{¶ 3} In State v. Coffman, 91 Ohio St.3d 125, 126, 2001-Ohio-273, the Supreme Court of Ohio expressly held that "a trial court's denial of a motion for shock probation is never a final appealable order." In addition, appellate courts in Ohio that have addressed this issue afterCoffman have held that the same logic is applicable to a denial of a motion for judicial release since it mirrors shock probation. State v.Woods (2001), 141 Ohio App.3d 549, 550; State v. Williams, 10th Dist. No. 07AP-1035, 2008-Ohio-1906, at ¶ 9; State v. Mayle, 5th Dist. Nos. 07-CA-0006 and 07-CA-0007, 2008-Ohio-3761, at ¶ 13; State v.Greene, 2d Dist. No. 02-CA-17, 2002-Ohio-2595, at ¶ 6.

{¶ 4} App. R. 4(A) states in relevant part:

{¶ 5} "A party shall file the notice of appeal required by App. R. 3 within thirty days of the later of entry of the judgment or order appealed * * *."

{¶ 6} Clearly, the appealed judgment denying appellant's motion for judicial

release is not a final appealable order. In addition, even if the judgment was a final appealable order, it is untimely since appellant filed his notice of appeal beyond the thirty-day requirement in App. R. 4(A).

{¶ 7} Therefore, this appeal is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

{¶ 8} Appeal dismissed.

MARY JANE TRAPP, P.J., TIMOTHY P. CANNON, J., concur. *Page 1

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2009 Ohio 2301, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-meloy-2009-l-031-5-15-2009-ohioctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack