Court Opinion

ID: 9882872
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-05 22:21:16.853204+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:20.455353
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Cisco, 2023-Ohio-3305.]

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

STATE OF OHIO,                                   CASE NOS. 2023-L-082
CITY OF PAINESVILLE,                                       2023-L-083
                                                           2023-L-084
                 Plaintiff-Appellee,
                                                 Criminal Appeals from the
        - vs -                                   Painesville Municipal Court

CHRISTOPHER J. CISCO,
                                                 Trial Court Nos. 2012 CRB 02686 A
                 Defendant-Appellant.                             2012 CRB 02686 B
                                                                  2012 CRB 02686 C

                                            MEMORANDUM
                                              OPINION

                                    Decided: September 18, 2023
                                    Judgment: Appeals dismissed

Joseph Hada, Painesville City Prosecutor, 1392 Som Center Road, Mayfield Heights,
OH 44124 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).

Christopher J. Cisco, pro se, 901 Southwind Road, Springfield, IL 62703 (Defendant-
Appellant).

MARY JANE TRAPP, J.

        {¶1}     On August 25, 2023, appellant, Christopher J. Cisco, pro se, filed a notice

of appeal from a January 18, 2023 entry denying his motion to seal his record and a

February 9, 2023 entry denying his motion to reconsider sealing of his record.

        {¶2}     A timely notice of appeal from the January 18, 2023 entry was due no later

than February 17, 2023, and a timely notice of appeal from the February 9, 2023 entry
was due no later than March 13, 2023, which were not holidays or weekends. Both

appeals are untimely by over 5 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}   Because the appeals were untimely filed, this court lacks jurisdiction. Thus,

the appeals are dismissed, sua sponte, as being untimely.

JOHN J. EKLUND, P.J.,

EUGENE A. LUCCI, J.,

concur.

                                              2

Case Nos. 2023-L-082, 2023-L-083, 2023-L-084