State v. Nixon

2021 Ohio 3081
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedSeptember 7, 2021
Docket2021-P-0077
StatusPublished

This text of 2021 Ohio 3081 (State v. Nixon) 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. Nixon, 2021 Ohio 3081 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Nixon, 2021-Ohio-3081.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PORTAGE COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 2021-P-0077

Plaintiff-Appellee, Criminal Appeal from the -v- Court of Common Pleas

DAVID A. NIXON, Trial Court No. 2021 CR 00626 Defendant-Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Decided: September 7, 2021 Judgment: Appeal dismissed

Victor V. Vigluicci, Portage County Prosecutor, 241 South Chestnut Street, Ravenna, OH 44266 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).

David A. Nixon, pro se, Portage County Jail, 8240 Infirmary Road, Ravenna, OH 44266 (Defendant-Appellant).

THOMAS R. WRIGHT, J.

{¶1} On July 23, 2021, appellant, David A. Nixon, pro se, filed a notice of appeal

from the trial court’s July 12, 2021 judgment entry which orders: “[appellant’s] bond is set

at $100,000 cash or surety and shall have a Temporary Protection Order.”

{¶2} R.C. 2505.02 defines the types of orders that constitute a final appealable

order:

{¶3} “(1) An order that affects a substantial right in an action that in effect

determines the action and prevents a judgment; {¶4} “(2) An order that affects a substantial right made in a special proceeding or

upon a summary application in an action after judgment;

{¶5} “(3) An order that vacates or sets aside a judgment or grants a new trial;

{¶6} “(4) An order that grants or denies a provisional remedy and to which both

of the following apply:

{¶7} “(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.

{¶8} “(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.

{¶9} “(5) An order that determines that an action may or may not be maintained

as a class action; * * *.”

{¶10} 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.”

Furthermore, “in a criminal case there must be a sentence which constitutes a judgment

or a final order which amounts ‘to a disposition of the cause’ before there is a basis for

appeal.” State v. Chamberlain, 177 Ohio St. 104, 106-107(1964); see also State v.

Eyajan, 11th Dist. Ashtabula Nos. 2019-A-0005, 2019-A-0006, 2019-A-0007, 2019-A-

0008, 2019-A-0009, 2019-A-0010, 2019-Ohio-419; State v. Thompson, 11th Dist.

Portage No. 2018-P-0066, 2018-Ohio-4177; State v. Marbuery-Davis, 11th Dist. Lake No.

2016-L-001, 2016-Ohio-898.

Case No. 2021-P-0077 {¶11} In the present case, there has been no disposition of the underlying cause

i.e., appellant has not been convicted.

{¶12} Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for lack of a final appealable order.

MARY JANE TRAPP, P.J.,

MATT LYNCH, J.,

concur.

Case No. 2021-P-0077

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

Related

State v. Marbuery-Davis
2016 Ohio 898 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2016)
State v. Thompson
2018 Ohio 4177 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2018)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2021 Ohio 3081, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-nixon-ohioctapp-2021.