State v. Szuch Fishery 12, L.L.C. ( 2024 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as State v. Szuch Fishery 12, L.L.C., 
    2024-Ohio-1431
    .]
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
    ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    ASHTABULA COUNTY
    STATE OF OHIO,                                          CASE NOS. 2024-A-0010
    2024-A-0011
    Plaintiff-Appellant/                             2024-A-0012
    Cross-Appellee,
    Criminal Appeals from the
    - vs -                                          Court of Common Pleas
    SZUCH FISHERY 12 LLC, et al.,
    Trial Court Nos. 2023 CR 00279
    Defendants-Appellees/                                   2023 CR 00280
    Cross-Appellants.                                       2023 CR 00281
    MEMORANDUM
    OPINION
    Decided: April 15, 2024
    Judgment: Appeals and Cross-Appeals dismissed
    Colleen M. O’Toole, Ashtabula County Prosecutor, Christopher R. Fortunato and
    Matthew J. Hebebrand, Assistant Prosecutors, 25 West Jefferson Street, Jefferson, OH
    44047 (For Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee).
    Erik Wineland, Rohrbacher Trimble & Zimmerman Co., LPA, 405 Madison Avenue, 8th
    Floor, Toledo, OH 43604 (For Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants).
    JOHN J. EKLUND, J.
    {¶1}     On January 22, 2024, the trial court entered a judgment ruling on four
    motions: defendants’ motions 1) for Handwriting Exemplar from Matthew Faust; 2) for
    review of grand jury testimony; 3) to dismiss the indictment for tampering with records;
    and 4) the state of Ohio’s motion to quash defendants’ three subpoenas.
    {¶2}     On motion one, the court stated “Counsel conceded this motion is now moot
    * * *. Therefore, the Motion is withdrawn.”
    {¶3}   On motion two, the court stated that “the Court concludes that Defendants
    have shown a particularized need to have the grand jury transcript reviewed to determine
    if the mistaken information was presented to the grand jury. A failure to review the grand
    jury testimony would likely deprive the Defendants of a fair trial, and the particularized
    need shown by the Defendants outweighs the need for secrecy.”
    {¶4}   “Therefore, Defendants’ Motion for Review of Grand Jury Testimony is
    Granted. Accordingly, the Court will examine the grand jury transcript in camera * * *.
    After the review * * * the Court may provide counsel with those portions of the transcript
    relevant to the issue * * *. The transcript * * * shall be provided to the Court and shall
    remain non-public and be filed under seal.”
    {¶5}   On motion three, the court stated that “Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the
    Indictment for Tampering With Records is held in abeyance” pending the in camera
    review of the grand jury testimony.
    {¶6}   The court denied motion four, holding the documents sought were
    “evidentiary and relevant” and “not otherwise procurable reasonably in advance of trial”
    and were sought in good faith.
    {¶7}   Appellant/cross-appellee, “appellant,” has appealed from the rulings on
    motions two and four. On motion two, the court made findings and ordered an in camera
    review of grand jury transcripts. It did not order production of the transcripts to anyone.
    That ruling is not a final appealable order. See Daher v. Cuyahoga Community College
    District, 
    155 Ohio St.3d 271
    ; 
    2018-Ohio-4462
    . As to motion four, the court merely denied
    a motion to quash subpoenas. It neither ordered production of evidence nor prevented
    2
    Case Nos. 2024-A-0010, 2024-A-0011, 2024-A-0012
    it. That is not a final appealable order. See State v. Pecsi, 11th Dist. Geauga Nos. 2021-
    G-0019, 2021-G-0020, 2021-G-0021, 
    2021-Ohio-3565
    .
    {¶8}   As to appellees’ cross-appeals, in the absence of a direct appeal from a
    conviction, appellees do not have an immediate right to appeal. See State v. Cook, 5th
    Dist. Fairfield No. 07 CA 39, 
    2007-Ohio-6446
    , ¶ 15-16.
    {¶9}   Further, appellees state on their cross-appeals that they are appealing the
    January 22, 2024 entry “declaring that the Defendants’ Motion for a Handwriting Exemplar
    withdrawn and failing to find that the State committed a fraud upon the court.” These are
    pretrial matters that are not immediately appealable because appellees have not been
    convicted and sentenced. See Pecsi, ¶ 11-13.
    {¶10} Accordingly, the appeals and cross-appeals are dismissed for lack of a final
    appealable order.
    {¶11} Appeals and cross-appeals dismissed.
    MARY JANE TRAPP, J.,
    ROBERT J. PATTON, J.,
    concur.
    3
    Case Nos. 2024-A-0010, 2024-A-0011, 2024-A-0012
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2024-A-0010, 2024-A-0011, 2024-A-0012

Judges: Eklund

Filed Date: 4/15/2024

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 4/15/2024