Summary
In Dooley, we noted that the thirty-day time period in which to appeal the underlying judgment under Rules I(1)(A) and (B) of the Supreme Court Rules of Practice had expired.
Summary of this case from State, ex Rel. Durkin, v. UngaroOpinion
No. 86-859
Decided April 15, 1987.
Appellate procedure — Untimely appeal dismissed, when.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County.
Appellant, John A. Dooley, filed a complaint in mandamus in the court of appeals, which granted the requested writ. Appellant then filed a motion which, in essence, asked the court to reconsider its apparent refusal to award damages. This motion was denied.
The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right.
John A. Dooley, pro se. Lee C. Falke, prosecuting attorney, and Sharon L. Ovington, for appellee.
Appellant's notice of appeal was filed with the court of appeals on May 1, 1986 and with this court on May 30, 1986. Appellant purports to appeal from a judgment of the court of appeals of April 8, 1986. However, that judgment was pursuant to a motion filed with the court of appeals which the court treated as a motion for reconsideration. Thus, the underlying judgment of the court of appeals was dated February 21, 1986 and appellant, not having timely filed his notice of appeal in this court, or in the court of appeals, from that judgment, in accordance with Rules I(1)(A) and (B) of the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court, the appeal is dismissed.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, LOCHER, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT and H. BROWN, JJ., concur.