Home/Ohio Court of Appeals/State v. Wetzel

State v. Wetzel

194 N.E.2d 911, 118 Ohio App. 368, 25 Ohio Op. 2d 261, 1963 Ohio App. LEXIS 800
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedAugust 13, 1963
Docket7414
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 194 N.E.2d 911 (State v. Wetzel) 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. Wetzel, 194 N.E.2d 911, 118 Ohio App. 368, 25 Ohio Op. 2d 261, 1963 Ohio App. LEXIS 800 (Ohio Ct. App. 1963).

Opinion

Duffy, P. J.

The state of Ohio has filed a motion asking for a dismissal of this appeal for the reason that the order for which the defendant, appellant herein, has attempted to appeal is not a final or appealable order, and that jurisdiction has not as yet been conferred on this court. The appeal has been taken from the overruling of a motion to suppress evidence.

The defendant-appellant has not answered the motion, but it appears that the order appealed from is not a final or appeal-able order. See Section 2953.02 of the Revised Code and State v. Holbrook, 105 Ohio App., 414.

The motion to dismiss will be, and hereby is, sustained, and the cause remanded to the trial court for further proceedings according to law.

Motion sustained.

Bryant and Troop, JJ., concur.

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

Related

State v. Ricciardi
733 N.E.2d 291 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1999)
State v. Crawley
644 N.E.2d 724 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
194 N.E.2d 911, 118 Ohio App. 368, 25 Ohio Op. 2d 261, 1963 Ohio App. LEXIS 800, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-wetzel-ohioctapp-1963.