Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed as untimely an appeal from four entries issued by the Court of Appeals for Crawford County. It affirmed the court of appeals’ rulings on two later entries, holding that the court properly denied a motion to strike and properly struck a notice of appeal filed in the court of appeals rather than in the Supreme Court.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Henry's appeal from the court of appeals' April 30 and May 2015 entries was timely.
- Whether the Supreme Court of Ohio had jurisdiction to review the June 17 and July 2 entries to the extent they concerned Henry's criminal appeal.
- Whether the court of appeals erred in denying Henry's motion to strike and in striking a notice of appeal filed in the court of appeals rather than in the Supreme Court of Ohio.
Holdings
- The appeal was untimely as to the court of appeals' April 30 entry and the three entries issued in May 2015 because Henry filed his notice of appeal more than 45 days after those entries.
- The court of appeals did not err in denying Henry's motion to strike or in striking the notice of appeal filed in the court of appeals; an appeal from a court of appeals judgment must be filed in the Supreme Court of Ohio.
Key quotations
“As to the July 2 entry, the court of appeals correctly explained that a notice of appeal of a judgment of the court of appeals should be filed in this court and not in the court of appeals.” (¶ 4)
“Appeal dismissed in part and judgment affirmed in part.” (¶ 4)
Factual background
Marvin E. Henry was convicted of disorderly conduct and pursued an appeal pro se. During that appeal, he filed a mandamus complaint under the same case number and moved to stay the appeal pending resolution of the mandamus action. The court of appeals struck the complaint because mandamus is a separate civil proceeding and later issued entries concerning dismissal of the appeal, motions to strike, and an improperly filed notice of appeal.
Procedural history
After being found guilty of disorderly conduct, Henry filed a pro se mandamus complaint while appealing his criminal judgment. The court of appeals struck the mandamus complaint, dismissed his criminal appeal for failure to prosecute, denied motions to file a brief out of time and to strike, and struck filings purporting to appeal to the Supreme Court of Ohio. Henry filed a notice of appeal in the Supreme Court of Ohio more than 45 days after four of the challenged entries. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as untimely as to those four entries, declined jurisdiction over the June 17 and July 2 entries to the extent they concerned the criminal appeal, and affirmed as to those entries to the extent they concerned the mandamus action.