From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Nixon

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Portage
Sep 20, 2021
2021 Ohio 3291 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021)

Opinion

2021-P-0075 2021-P-0076 2021-P-0082 2021-P-0083

09-20-2021

STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DAVID A. NIXON, Defendant-Appellant.

Victor V. Vigluicci, Portage County Prosecutor, (For Plaintiff-Appellee). David A. Nixon, pro se, Portage County Jail, (Defendant-Appellant).


Criminal Appeals from the Municipal Court, Ravenna Division, Trial Court Nos. 2021 CRA 00990 R 2021 CRA 01410 R

Victor V. Vigluicci, Portage County Prosecutor, (For Plaintiff-Appellee).

David A. Nixon, pro se, Portage County Jail, (Defendant-Appellant).

MEMORANDUM OPINION

MARY JANE TRAPP, P.J.

{¶1} In Portage County M.C. No. 2021 CRA 00990 R, a criminal complaint for disrupting public services was filed against appellant. In Portage County M.C. No. 2021 CRA 01410 R, a criminal complaint for violating a temporary protection order and theft was filed against appellant.

{¶2} On July 20, 2021, appellant, David A. Nixon, filed notices of appeal in 11th Dist. Portage Nos. 2021-P-0075 [2021 CRA 00990 R] and 2021-P-0076 [2021 CRA 01410 R], from the trial court's July 1 and 2, 2021 entries. In the July 1, 2021 entry, bond was set at $10,000, and in the July 2, 2021 entry, bond was set at $40,000.

{¶3} On August 2, 2021, appellant filed notices of appeal in 11th Dist. Portage Nos. 2021-P-0082 and 2021-P-0083, from the trial court's July 9, 2021 entry in the two underlying cases. In that entry, the trial court dismissed the charges on the motion of the prosecutor, indicating that appellant had been indicted by the Grand Jury.

{¶4} All four appeals were consolidated by this court.

{¶5} A court of appeals is limited to the review of final orders from lower courts. Section 3(B)(2), Article IV, Ohio Constitution; R.C. 2953.02.

{¶6} Under R.C. 2505.02(B), there are seven categories of "final orders," and if a trial court's judgment satisfies any of one of them, it will be considered a "final order" which can be immediately appealed and reviewed by a court of appeals. Germ v. Fuerst, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2003-L-116, 2003-Ohio-6241, ¶ 3.

{¶7} Further, trial court's July 9, 2021 entry dismissing the charges against appellant does not fall under any of the categories in R.C. 2505.02 for being a final appealable order. The State moved to dismiss the charges in the indictment against appellant pursuant to Crim.R. 48, which the trial court granted. As a result, appellant was placed in the same position he was in prior to filing of the State's charges against him. Thus, the July 9, 2021 entry is not a final appealable order. See City of Hudson/State v. Harger, 9th Dist. Summit No. 26208, 2012-Ohio-2604, ¶ 8; State v. Williams, 9th Dist. Summit No. 25384, 2011-Ohio-6412, ¶ 11.

{¶8} Consequently, any argument concerning the trial court entries of July 1, 2021 and July 2, 2021 setting bond is moot since the trial court cases are no longer pending.

{¶9} Appeals dismissed.

CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J., JOHN J. EKLUND, J., concur.


Summaries of

State v. Nixon

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Portage
Sep 20, 2021
2021 Ohio 3291 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021)
Case details for

State v. Nixon

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DAVID A. NIXON, Defendant-Appellant.

Court:Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Portage

Date published: Sep 20, 2021

Citations

2021 Ohio 3291 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021)