State v. Wetzel

194 N.E.2d 911, 118 Ohio App. 368, 25 Ohio Op. 2d 261, 1963 Ohio App. LEXIS 800
Ohio Court of Appeals·Decided August 13, 1963·No. 7414·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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

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).

194 N.E.2d 911 (State v. Wetzel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)