State v. Rodgers

2025 Ohio 5101

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: November 10, 2025
• Docket: 2025-T-0015
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Rodgers, 2025-Ohio-5101.]

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

STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 2025-T-0015 CITY OF WARREN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, Criminal Appeal from the Warren Municipal Court - vs -

MICHAEL A. RODGERS, Trial Court No. 2024 CRB 002023

Defendant-Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY

Decided: November 10, 2025 Judgment: Appeal dismissed

Enzo Cantalamesa, Warren City Law Director, and Cheryl Zebrasky, Assistant Prosecutor, 141 South Street, S.E., Warren, OH 44481 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).

Edward A. Czopur, P.O. Box 3313, 407 Boardman-Canfield Road, Suite 3313, Youngstown, OH 44503 (For Defendant-Appellant).

ROBERT J. PATTON, P.J.

{¶1} On March 28, 2025, appellant, Michael A. Rodgers (“Rodgers”), through

original counsel, Attorney Candace C. Garrett (“Attorney Garrett”), filed a notice of appeal

from the Warren Municipal Court’s February 25, 2025 entry. The entry reflected that a

hearing was held and that Rodgers was found to be in violation of his community control.

The trial court did not revoke community control. Instead, the entry amended Rodgers’s

sentence to 180 days in jail with 163 days suspended and imposed an additional condition of community control that Rodgers complete a mental health evaluation and comply with

any recommendations as a result of the evaluation.1

{¶2} On May 1, 2025, this court ordered original counsel to show cause why this

appeal should not be dismissed for lack of a final appealable order. Attorney Garrett failed

to file a response to that order. New counsel was subsequently appointed on June 12,

2025. There has been no response to the court’s order to show cause.

{¶3} Rodgers’s notice of appeal was filed outside of rule. “[A] party who wishes

to appeal from an order that is final upon its entry shall file the notice of appeal required

by App.R. 3 within 30 days of that entry.” App.R. 4(A)(1). The trial court’s judgment entry

was filed on February 25, 2025. The notice of appeal was filed on March 28, 2025. A

timely notice of appeal was due on or before March 27, 2025. As the appeal was untimely

filed, this court lacks jurisdiction. The untimeliness of the notice of appeal provides the

basis for dismissal.

{¶4} Supplementary to our conclusion that Rodgers’s appeal was untimely, we

note that it is unclear whether the Warren Municipal Court’s February 25, 2025 order

complied with Crim.R. 32(C) and is a final appealable order. However, such inquiry is

premature in light of this court’s determination that Rodgers’s appeal is untimely.

{¶5} App.R. 5(A)(1) states: “After the expiration of the thirty day period provided

by App.R. 4(A) for the filing of a notice of appeal as of right, an appeal may be taken by

a defendant with leave of the court to which the appeal is taken in the following classes

of cases: Criminal proceedings . . . .” App.R. 5(A)(2) further provides that “[a] motion for

1. The initial sentence imposed in this case was as follows: 180 days in jail with 175 days suspended, and Rogers was placed on probation for 1 year. PAGE 2 OF 4

Case No. 2025-T-0015 leave to appeal shall be filed with the court of appeals and shall set forth the reasons for

the failure of the appellant to perfect an appeal as of right.”

{¶6} Rodgers has neither complied with the thirty-day rule set forth in App.R.

4(A)(1) nor sought leave to appeal under App.R. 5(A). Thus, this court is without

jurisdiction to consider the appeal.

{¶7} This appeal is dismissed, sua sponte, as untimely.

MATT LYNCH, J.,

JOHN J. EKLUND, J.,

concur.

PAGE 3 OF 4

Case No. 2025-T-0015 JUDGMENT ENTRY

For the reasons stated in the memorandum opinion of this court, it is ordered that

this appeal is hereby dismissed, sua sponte, as untimely.

Costs shall be taxed against appellant.

PRESIDING JUDGE ROBERT J. PATTON

JUDGE MATT LYNCH, concurs

JUDGE JOHN J. EKLUND, concurs

THIS DOCUMENT CONSTITUTES A FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY

A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure.

PAGE 4 OF 4

Case No. 2025-T-0015