[Cite as State v. Bechtel, 2019-Ohio-4652.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

 LAKE COUNTY, OHIO 

STATE OF OHIO, : MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, : 

 CASE NOS. 2019-L-107

 - vs - : 2019-L-108 

 2019-L-109 

NADINE BECHTEL, : 2019-L-110 

 2019-L-111 

 Defendant-Appellant. : 2019-L-112 

 2019-L-113 

 2019-L-114 

Criminal Appeals from the Willoughby Municipal Court, Case Nos. 2019 CRB 01630 A, 

B, C, D, E, F, G, H. 

Judgment: Appeals dismissed. 

J. Jeffrey Holland, Holland and Muirden, 1343 Sharon-Copley Road, P.O. Box 345, 

Sharon Center, OH 44274 (For Plaintiff-Appellee). 

Michela J. Huth, P.O. Box 17, Bolivar, OH 44612 (For Defendant-Appellant). 

THOMAS R. WRIGHT, P.J. 

{¶1} Appellee, the state of Ohio, moves to dismiss the appeals for lack of a 

final appealable order. Appellant, Nadine Bechtel, opposes. For the following reasons, 

appellee’s motion has merit. 

{¶2} Multiple cruelty to companion animal counts were brought against 

appellant in the Willoughby Municipal Court. In a September 5, 2019 entry, the trial 

court denied appellant’s motion to continue and her supplement to the motion to 
2

continue the final pre trial which was ultimately held September 19, 2019. Appellant’s 

notice of appeal purports to appeal the trial court’s September 13, 2019 denial of her 

motion to reconsider the judgment denying the continuance. 

{¶3} R.C. 2505.02 defines the types of orders that constitute final appealable 

orders: 

{¶4} “(1) An order that affects a substantial right in an action that in effect 

determines the action and prevents a judgment; 

{¶5} “(2) An order that affects a substantial right made in a special proceeding 

or upon a summary application in an action after judgment; 

{¶6} “(3) An order that vacates or sets aside a judgment or grants a new trial; 

{¶7} “(4) An order that grants or denies a provisional remedy and to which both 

of the following apply: 

{¶8} “(a) The order in effect determines the action with respect to the 

provisional remedy and prevents a judgment in the action in favor of the appealing party 

with respect to the provisional remedy. 

{¶9} “(b) The appealing party would not be afforded a meaningful or effective 

remedy by an appeal following final judgment as to all proceedings, issues, claims, and 

parties in the action. 

{¶10} “(5) An order that determines that an action may or may not be maintained 

as a class action * * *.” 

{¶11} A court of appeals has jurisdiction to hear a criminal appeal from a 

“judgment or final order.” R.C. 2953.02. “In a criminal case there must be a sentence 

which constitutes a judgment or a final order which amounts ‘to a disposition of the 
3

cause’ before there is a basis for appeal.” State v. Chamberlain, 177 Ohio St. 104, 106-

107(1964); see also State v. Thompson, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2018-P-0066, 2018-

Ohio-4177; State v. Marbuery-Davis, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2016-L-001, 2016-Ohio-898. 

{¶12} Here, there has been no disposition of the underlying cause because 

appellant has not been convicted or sentenced. Appellant’s contention that the 

appealed entry compels discovery and is a provisional remedy is unsupported. The 

entry merely denies reconsideration of the court’s previous order denying appellant’s 

motion to continue the pre trial. 

{¶13} Appellee’s motion to dismiss for lack of a final appealable order is granted. 

Appellant’s remedy is to appeal after final disposition. 

{¶14} Appeals dismissed. 

MATT LYNCH, J., 

MARY JANE TRAPP, J., 

concur.