Court Opinion

ID: 9378834
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-13 18:07:04.389212+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:09.401655
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Oscar, 2023-Ohio-769.]

                 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                            ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                   LAKE COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,                                   CASE NOS. 2023-L-016
CITY OF PAINESVILLE,                                       2023-L-017
                                                           2023-L-026
                 Plaintiff-Appellee,
                                                 Criminal Appeals from the
        - vs -                                   Painesville Municipal Court

KAMERON CHARLES OSCAR,
                                                 Trial Court Nos. 2022 CRB 01178
                 Defendant-Appellant.                             2022 CRB 01247A
                                                                  2022 CRB 01247B

                                           MEMORANDUM
                                             OPINION

                                      Decided: March 13, 2023
                                    Judgment: Appeals dismissed

Ron M. Graham, Painesville City Prosecutor, 521 Malvern Drive, Painesville, OH 44077
(For Plaintiff-Appellee).

Kameron Charles Oscar, pro se, 142 Turner Drive, Chardon, OH 44024 (Defendant-
Appellant).

MATT LYNCH, J.

        {¶1}     On February 6, 2023, appellant, Kameron C. Oscar, pro se, filed a “Letter

of Intent to Appeal Convictions,” construed as a notice of appeal, in the appeals. A review

of the dockets reflect that on October 28, 2022, after entering a plea of guilty to violating

a protection order, the trial court sentenced appellant to serve 120 days, concurrently with

his common pleas cases, in the Lake County Jail.
       {¶2}   Timely notices of appeal from the October 28, 2022 entries were due no

later than November 28, 2022, which was not a holiday or weekend. The appeals are

untimely by over two months.

       {¶3}    “* * * [A] party who wishes to appeal from an order that is final upon its entry

shall file the notice of appeal required by App.R. 3 within 30 days of that entry.” App.R.

4(A)(1).

       {¶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}   “(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.

* * *.” App.R. 5(A).

       {¶7}   Appellant has neither complied with the thirty-day rule set forth in App.R.

4(A)(1) nor sought leave to appeal under App.R. 5(A).            Thus, this court is without

jurisdiction to consider his appeals. Appellant has a remedy of filing an untimely criminal

appeal under App.R. 5(A).

       {¶8}   Appeals dismissed, sua sponte, as untimely.

JOHN J. EKLUND, P.J.,

EUGENE A. LUCCI, J.,

concur.

                                              2

Case Nos. 2023-L-016, 2023-L-017, 2023-L-026