State v. Schrock

2017 Ohio 2723
Ohio Court of Appeals·Decided May 8, 2017·No. 2016-P-0078·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PORTAGE COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO, : MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff-Appellee, :

CASE NO. 2016-P-0078

- vs - :

MATTHEW M. SCHROCK, :

Defendant-Appellant. :

Criminal Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2013 CR 00164.

Judgment: Appeal dismissed.

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

Matthew M. Schrock, pro se, Portage County Jail, 8204 Infirmary Road, Ravenna, OH 44266 (Defendant-Appellant).

CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, P.J.

{¶1} On December 5, 2016, appellant, Matthew M. Schrock, pro se, filed a notice of appeal from a November 21, 2016 judgment issued by the Portage County Court of Common Pleas denying his motion for judicial release without a hearing.

{¶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

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 after Coffman have held that the same logic is applicable to a denial of a motion for judicial release since it mirrors shock probation. See State v. Woods, 141 Ohio App.3d 549, 550 (2001); State v. Williams, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 07AP-1035, 2008-Ohio-1906, at ¶8; State v. Mayle, 5th Dist. Morgan Nos. 07-CA-0006 and 07-CA-0007, 2008-Ohio-3761, at ¶13; State v. Greene, 2d Dist. Greene No. 02-CA-17, 2002-Ohio-2595, at ¶6. Since there is no right to judicial release, the denial of a motion for judicial release cannot affect a “substantial right” as that term is defined in R.C. 2505.02(A)(1).

{¶4} Therefore, this appeal is hereby dismissed, sua sponte, for lack of a final appealable order.

{¶5} Appeal dismissed.

TIMOTHY P. CANNON, J., THOMAS R. WRIGHT, J., concur.

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

State v. Schrock, 2017 Ohio 2723 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).

2017 Ohio 2723 (State v. Schrock) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Zakrajsek
2018 Ohio 1888 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2018)