[Cite as State v. Dicks, 2012-Ohio-2621.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO 

 Plaintiff-Appellee 

-vsDAVID T. DICKS 

 Defendant-Appellant 

JUDGES: 

Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. 

Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. 

Hon. John W. Wise, J. 

Case No. CT2011-0059 

O P I N I O N 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Muskingum County Court 

of Common Pleas, Case No. CR2011-0112 

JUDGMENT: Dismissed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: June 11, 2012 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant 

RONALD L. WELCH FREDERICK A. SEALOVER 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 45 N. Fourth Street 

27 North Fifth Street P.O. Box 2910 

Zanesville, Ohio 43701 Zanesville, Ohio 43702-2910 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2011-0059 2

Hoffman, J. 

{¶1} Defendant-appellant David T. Dicks appeals the October 4, 2011 

Judgment Entry entered by the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas which 

granted the Plaintiff-appellee state of Ohio’s Motion to Amend the Indictment. 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1

{¶2} Appellant was indicted on 20 counts of gross sexual imposition, violations 

of R.C. 2907.05(A)(4), all involving the same victim. The case proceeded to trial by jury. 

{¶3} At the close of the state’s case, Appellant moved for acquittal pursuant to 

Crim. R. 29, arguing although the evidence may have been sufficient to support a 

certain nature of the charged offense, it was not sufficient to support the nature of the 

offense as charged in the Indictment. 

{¶4} In response, the state moved to amend the Indictment to include 

additional language which comported to the evidence adduced at trial and denied 

Appellant’s motion for acquittal. Appellant then requested the jury be discharged 

pursuant to Crim. R. 7D. Via Judgment Entry filed October 4, 2011, that request was 

granted and the jury was ordered dismissed without prejudice with a new trial to be 

scheduled. 

{¶5} It is from that judgment entry Appellant prosecutes this appeal, assigning 

as error: 

{¶6} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN PERMITTING THE STATE OF OHIO 

TO AMEND ITS INDICTMENT AND DENYING THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR 

 

1

 A rendition of the facts is unnecessary for our disposition of this appeal. 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2011-0059 3

ACQUITTAL FOLLOWING THE CONCLUSION OF THE STATE OF OHIO’S CASE IN 

CHIEF AT TRIAL.” 

{¶7} Because Appellant is awaiting a new trial and has yet to be found guilty 

and/or sentenced, we find no final appealable order exists under R.C. 2505.02. As 

such, this Court is without jurisdiction and orders Appellant’s appeal dismissed. 

By: Hoffman, J. 

Gwin, P.J. and 

Wise, J. concur 

 s/ William B. Hoffman _________________

 HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN 

 s/ W. Scott Gwin _____________________

 HON. W. SCOTT GWIN 

 s/ John W. Wise _____________________

 HON. JOHN W. WISE 

 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2011-0059 4

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO : 

 : 

 Plaintiff-Appellee : 

 : 

-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY 

 : 

DAVID T. DICKS : 

 : 

 Defendant-Appellant : Case No. CT2011-0059 

 For the reason stated in our accompanying Opinion, this appeal is ordered 

dismissed. Costs assessed to Appellant. 

 s/ William B. Hoffman _________________

 HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN 

 s/ W. Scott Gwin _____________________

 HON. W. SCOTT GWIN 

 s/ John W. Wise _____________________

 HON. JOHN W. WISE