State v. Milo

Ohio Court of Appeals

State v. Milo

501 N.E.2d 682, 28 Ohio App. 3d 60, 28 Ohio B. 72, 1986 Ohio App. LEXIS 9974

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 6, 1986

Docket86AP-264

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 501 N.E.2d 682 (State v. Milo) 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. Milo, 501 N.E.2d 682, 28 Ohio App. 3d 60, 28 Ohio B. 72, 1986 Ohio App. LEXIS 9974 (Ohio Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Whiteside, J.

This cause is before the court upon a notice of appeal from an order of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas and a motion of defendant-appellant, Frederick P. Milo, for determination of the appropriate forum for the appeal.

Defendant was apparently indicted by the Summit County Grand Jury, and the case was filed in the Summit County Court of Common Pleas under case No. CR 80-10-1392(D). A change of venue was granted, with the trial being conducted in Franklin County under case No. 81CR-03-847, Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, resulting in a conviction. An appeal to this court resulted in an affirmance, State v. Milo (1982), 6 Ohio App. 3d 19.

Apparently, sometime later, defendant filed a motion for new trial upon the ground of newly discovered evidence in the Summit County Court of Common Pleas under case No. CR 80-10-1392(D) in that court.

On March 5, 1986, the Summit County Court of Common Pleas entered an order in case No. CR 80-10-1392(D) in that court overruling defendant’s motion for new trial. It is from that order of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas that defendant now attempts to appeal to this court. Defendant indicates that he also filed a notice of appeal from that order to the Ninth District Court of Appeals, which has dismissed the appeal upon the ground that this court “is the appropriate forum for this appeal,” citing Crim. R. 18(B).

The initial question before us, however, is not what forum is appropriate under the circumstances but, rather, whether this court has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from an order of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, even assuming that the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, rather than that of Summit County, is the appropriate forum under Crim. R. 18(B) to entertain and determine defendant’s motion for new trial.

We conclude that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from an order of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, even if the motion and order were erroneously filed in that court. See R.C. 2501.02(A).

Accordingly, we must sua sponte dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Appeal dismissed.

Strausbaugh and Norris, JJ., concur.

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

Whiteside, J.

This cause is before the court upon a notice of appeal from an order of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas and a motion of defendant-appellant, Frederick P. Milo, for determination of the appropriate forum for the appeal.

Defendant was apparently indicted by the Summit County Grand Jury, and the case was filed in the Summit County Court of Common Pleas under case No. CR 80-10-1392(D). A change of venue was granted, with the trial being conducted in Franklin County under case No. 81CR-03-847, Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, resulting in a conviction. An appeal to this court resulted in an affirmance, State v. Milo (1982), 6 Ohio App. 3d 19.

Apparently, sometime later, defendant filed a motion for new trial upon the ground of newly discovered evidence in the Summit County Court of Common Pleas under case No. CR 80-10-1392(D) in that court.

On March 5, 1986, the Summit County Court of Common Pleas entered an order in case No. CR 80-10-1392(D) in that court overruling defendant’s motion for new trial. It is from that order of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas that defendant now attempts to appeal to this court. Defendant indicates that he also filed a notice of appeal from that order to the Ninth District Court of Appeals, which has dismissed the appeal upon the ground that this court “is the appropriate forum for this appeal,” citing Crim. R. 18(B).

The initial question before us, however, is not what forum is appropriate under the circumstances but, rather, whether this court has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from an order of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, even assuming that the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, rather than that of Summit County, is the appropriate forum under Crim. R. 18(B) to entertain and determine defendant’s motion for new trial.

We conclude that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from an order of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, even if the motion and order were erroneously filed in that court. See R.C. 2501.02(A).

Accordingly, we must sua sponte dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Appeal dismissed.

Strausbaugh and Norris, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

501 N.E.2d 682, 28 Ohio App. 3d 60, 28 Ohio B. 72, 1986 Ohio App. LEXIS 9974, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-milo-ohioctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack