State v. Nixon

[Cite as State v. Nixon, 2018-Ohio-4269.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
PORTAGE COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO, : MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
CASE NOS. 2018-P-0062
- vs - : 2018-P-0063
DAVID A. NIXON, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
Criminal Appeals from the Court of Common Pleas, Case Nos. 2016 CR 00394 and
2016 CR 00496.
Judgment: Appeal dismissed.
Victor V. Vigluicci, Portage County Prosecutor, 241 South Chestnut Street, Ravenna,
OH 44266 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
David A. Nixon, pro se, Portage County Jail, 8240 Infirmary Road, Ravenna, OH
44266 (Defendant-Appellant).
CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J.
{¶1} On August 22, 2018, appellant, pro se, filed a notice of appeal and motion
for leave to file a delayed appeal. Appellant indicates that he is appealing from the trial
court’s October 11, 2017 entry granting his motion for judicial release. The appeals are
untimely filed by over nine months.
{¶2} No brief or response in opposition to appellant’s motion has been filed.
{¶3} App.R. 5(A) provides, in relevant part:
{¶4} “(1) After the expiration of the thirty day period provided by App.R. 4(A) for
the filing of a notice of appeal as of right, an appeal may be taken by a defendant with
leave of the court to which the appeal is taken in the following classes of cases:
{¶5} “(a) Criminal proceedings;
{¶6} “(b) Delinquency proceedings; and
{¶7} “(c) Serious youthful offender proceedings.
{¶8} “(2) A motion for leave to appeal shall be filed with the court of appeals
and shall set forth the reasons for the failure of the appellant to perfect an appeal as of
right. * * *.”
{¶9} In his motion, appellant indicates that his reason for filing his appeals
untimely is “based upon newly discovered judicial errors and abuse of discretion by the
sentencing court that could not have been discovered by [him] within the time allowed
by App.R. 4(A).” Appellant further contends that he discovered certain issues to appeal
after reviewing a transcript that he received on another matter.
{¶10} We find that appellant’s assertion fails to explain what prevented him from
appealing in a timely fashion, and it does not justify a delay of over nine months in filing
his appeals.
{¶11} Thus, it is ordered that appellant’s motion for leave to file a delayed appeal
is hereby overruled.
{¶12} Appeals dismissed.
THOMAS R. WRIGHT, P.J.,
TIMOTHY P. CANNON, J., concur.
2