[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.

Jud g ment: 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 l ack of a final appealable order. Appellant, Nadine Bechtel, opposes. F or the following reasons, appellee’s motion has merit. {¶2} Multiple cruelty to companion animal counts were brought agains t 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 to2 continue the final pre trial which was ultimately held Septembe r 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 tha t in effect determines the action and prevents a judgment; {¶5} “(2) An order that affects a substantial right made in a specia l 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 fav or 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 proceedi ngs, 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 f rom 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 the3 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 bec ause appellant has not been convicted or sentenced. Appellant’s con tention that the appealed entry compels discovery and is a provisional remedy is unsupported. The entry merely denies reconsideration of the court’s previous ord er denying appellant’s motion to continue the pre trial. {¶13} Appellee’s motion to dismiss for lack of a final appealable ord er is granted. Appellant’s remedy is to appeal after final disposition. {¶14} Appeals dismissed.

MATT LYNCH, J., MARY JANE TRAPP, J.,

concur.