State v. Stuber, Unpublished Decision (6-10-2003)
This text of State v. Stuber, Unpublished Decision (6-10-2003) (State v. Stuber, Unpublished Decision (6-10-2003)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law.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
{¶ 2} On April 23, 2002, Stuber was cited in case No. 2002-TRD-05036-A for driving under suspension, a first degree misdemeanor in violation of R.C.
{¶ 3} Stuber subsequently waived his right to a speedy trial and the cases were set for trial on July 31, 2002. When Stuber failed to appear for trial, the trial court ordered that the previously posted bond be forfeited in lieu of appearance. Stuber subsequently filed a notice of appeal from the July 31, 2002 judgment in case No. 2002-TRD-05036A.
{¶ 4} In this appeal, Stuber presents three assignments of error for our review. However, this court is required to raise jurisdictional issues sua sponte.1 It is well-established that an order must be final before it can be reviewed by an appellate court.2 If an order is not final and appealable, then an appellate court has no jurisdiction to review the matter and must dismiss the appeal.3
{¶ 5} An order must meet the requirements of R.C.
(A) Posting of bail; depositing of security. The posting of bail or depositing of security is for the purpose of securing appearance or compliance with R.C. §
2935.26 (C) only. The forfeiture of the bail or the security is not a substitute for appearance in court, compliance with R.C. §2935.26 (C), and payment of penalty imposed on pleas of finding of guilty.
{¶ 6} "Whether it be a municipal, county, or common pleas court, the same basic procedural formalities must be followed in order to assure that the parties, particularly the defendant in a criminal case, are fully aware of the time from which the thirty-day limitation of App.R. 4(B) commences to run."6 Therefore, in all criminal cases appealed to this court, including traffic appeals, a formal entry of conviction and sentence must be prepared in accordance with Crim.R. 32(C).7 Insofar as it appears that proceedings were suspended upon Stuber's notice of appeal from the entry of bond forfeiture, we do not have a final judgment of conviction and sentence. Therefore, the trial court's entry is merely interlocutory and we must dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Appeal dismissed. BRYANT, P.J. and CUPP, J., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
State v. Stuber, Unpublished Decision (6-10-2003), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-stuber-unpublished-decision-6-10-2003-ohioctapp-2003.