State v. Nixon
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.
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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2021 Ohio 3081, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-nixon-ohioctapp-2021.