Summary
holding that the denial of a motion to dismiss on double-jeopardy grounds is not a final, appealable order, but noting “the very persuasive argument that can be made in support of the immediate exercise of appellate jurisdiction” because of “the unique nature” of the motion
Summary of this case from State v. AndersonOpinion
No. 98-L-244.
July 16, 1999.
Appeal dismissed.
O'Neill, J., dissents. See Memorandum Opinion and Judgment Entry. [CHRISTLEY] (NADER) (O'NEILL)
APPELLATE REVIEW:
Under the current version of R.C. 2505.02, the denial of a motion to dismiss predicated on the Double Jeopardy Clause does not fall within the ambit of the statute, including the provisional remedy category embodied by R.C. 2505.02(B)(4). Accordingly, the denial of such a motion is not a final appealable order.