Opinion
2024-L-040
07-08-2024
STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JON P. KRUG, Defendant-Appellant.
Charles E. Coulson, Lake County Prosecutor, and Teri R. Daniel, Assistant Prosecutor, Lake County Administration Building, For Plaintiff-Appellee. Jon P. Krug, pro se, PID# A544-929, Richland Correctional Institution, Defendant-Appellant.
Civil Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas Trial Court No. 2008 CR 000008
Charles E. Coulson, Lake County Prosecutor, and Teri R. Daniel, Assistant Prosecutor, Lake County Administration Building, For Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jon P. Krug, pro se, PID# A544-929, Richland Correctional Institution, Defendant-Appellant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
MARY JANE TRAPP, J.
{¶1} On June 11, 2024, appellant, Jon P. Krug, filed a pro se notice of appeal from the trial court's May 7, 2024 judgment entry treating appellant's pro se motions as petitions for postconviction relief and denying them as untimely without a hearing.
{¶2} App.R. 4(A)(1) states that "a party who wishes to appeal from an order that is final upon its entry shall file the notice of appeal required by App.R. 3 within 30 days of that entry."
{¶3} Furthermore, postconviction proceedings are considered civil in nature. State v. Nichols, 11 Ohio St.3d 40, 40-42 (1984); see also State v. Jones, 2021 -Ohio-1696, ¶ 6 (11th Dist.).
{¶4} App.R. 4(A)(3) states, in relevant part:
{¶5} "In a civil case, if the clerk has not completed service of notice of the judgment within the three-day period prescribed in Civ.R. 58(B), the 30-day periods referenced in App.R. 4(A)(1) and 4(A)(2) begin to run on the date when the clerk actually completes service."
{¶6} Here, there is a notation on the docket reflecting the clerk mailed a copy of the May 7, 2024 entry to appellant on May 8, 2024, which is within the three-day period prescribed in Civ.R. 58(B). Therefore, a timely notice of appeal from the May 7, 2024 entry was due no later than June 6, 2024, which was not a holiday or weekend. The appeal is untimely by five days. The time requirement is jurisdictional in nature and may not be enlarged by an appellate court. State ex rel. Pendell v. Adams Cty. Bd. of Elections, 40 Ohio St.3d 58, 60 (1988); see also App.R. 14(B).
{¶7} Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed, sua sponte, as untimely.
MATT LYNCH, J, ROBERT J PATTON, J, concur