Court Opinion

ID: 9391572
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-02 17:07:57.841295+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:42.496543
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Fedor, 2023-Ohio-1455.]

                              IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                                   TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

State of Ohio,                                     :

                 Plaintiff-Appellee,               :             No. 22AP-386
                                                              (C.P.C. No. 20CR-3457)
v.                                                 :
                                                         (ACCELERATED CALENDAR)
Nathan A. Fedor,                                   :

                 Defendant-Appellant.              :

                                            D E C I S I O N

                                       Rendered on May 2, 2023

                 On brief: G. Gary Tyack, Prosecuting Attorney, and
                 Kimberly M. Bond, for appellee. Argued: Kimberly M. Bond.

                 On brief: Joseph R. Landusky, II, for appellant. Argued:
                 Joseph R. Landusky, II.

                  APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas

EDELSTEIN, J.
        {¶ 1} The Franklin County Court of Common Pleas ordered the forfeiture and
destruction of 14 firearms as a component of defendant-appellant, Nathan A. Fedor’s
sentence. Two days after the final judgment of sentence was entered, Mr. Fedor moved the
trial court to reconsider that component of his sentence. The trial court conducted a
hearing on that motion, which it ultimately denied during the hearing and by its June 23,
2022 entry. It is from this entry—not the judgment entry of sentence—Mr. Fedor now
appeals. Because there is no rule allowing a party to move for reconsideration of a final
judgment at the trial court level, however, the entry from which Mr. Fedor appeals is a
nullity. We thus find that Mr. Fedor has not appealed from a final appealable order or
judgment. For this reason, we dismiss his appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
No. 22AP-386                                                                                 2

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
       {¶ 2} On June 15, 2021, a Franklin County Grand Jury indicted Mr. Fedor with
three counts of having weapons while under a disability (“WUD”), all third-degree felonies.
The indictment accused Mr. Fedor of knowingly possessing firearms in March 2020 after
he had previously been convicted of a felony offense of violence, in violation of R.C. 2923.13.
(July 29, 2020 Indictment.) Because of this prior conviction, Mr. Fedor was not legally
allowed to possess or have access to firearms. (See id.)
       {¶ 3} These charges arose from Mr. Fedor’s unlawful possession and/or access to
14 firearms after he and his three children moved in with his mother, Linda Fedor. (See Tr.
at 9, 11-14.) When they moved in, Ms. Fedor had in her home a 14-gun collection, which
came into her possession after her husband (Mr. Fedor’s father) Larry Fedor passed away
in 2014. (Tr. at 7, 11.)
       {¶ 4} After receiving an anonymous report about firearms being hoarded at the
Fedor residence, law enforcement went to the home to investigate. (Tr. at 13.) Mr. Fedor
admitted to law enforcement his DNA would likely be found on most of the 14 firearms in
the home. (Tr. at 9-10.) He also knew the combination for the trunk in which these firearms
were stored. (Tr. at 12.)
       {¶ 5} Mr. Fedor pled guilty to one count of the indictment on March 14, 2022. (See
May 10, 2022 Jgmt. Entry.) On May 10, 2022, the trial court sentenced Mr. Fedor to a two-
year term of community control. (Id.) Among other community control sanctions it
imposed, the trial court ordered “that the weapon(s) be confiscated and destroyed.” (Id.)
Additional facts and circumstances underlying Mr. Fedor’s conviction are not properly
before us, however, because transcripts of the plea hearing and sentencing hearing were
not filed as part of the record for this appeal.
       {¶ 6} On May 12, 2022, Mr. Fedor filed a “Motion for Stay of Execution of
Judgment and Request for a Hearing on a Motion to Reconsider.” In that motion, Mr.
Fedor requested the trial court stay the forfeiture and destruction component of his
sentence “until this case is further reviewed” and “all legal avenues can be pursued.” (May
12, 2022 Mot. at 2.) He also contended that “irreparable harm may ensue if it is later
No. 22AP-386                                                                                   3

determined that [his mother, Linda Fedor] the rightful owner [of the gun collection subject
to forfeiture and destruction] [is entitled to] have her property returned.” (Id. at 1.)
       {¶ 7} No subsequent pleadings were filed by Mr. Fedor, his mother, or anyone else
claiming a possessory interest in the firearms. On June 22, 2022, the trial court nonetheless
held a hearing on Mr. Fedor’s motion. At that hearing, Mr. Fedor orally moved the trial
court to “reconsider [its] order” regarding the property disposition component of his
sentence. (Tr. at 3-4.) Mr. Fedor claimed the 14 firearms subject to the trial court’s May
10, 2022 forfeiture and destruction order were actually owned by his mother. (Tr. at 3-4.)
But evidence and testimony elicited from Ms. Fedor at the hearing undermined the veracity
of that claim. (See Tr. at 15-20; Hearing Ex. A.)
       {¶ 8} At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court denied Mr. Fedor’s May 12,
2022 motion to stay the destruction order and his oral reconsideration request. (Tr. at 21-
22.) On June 23, 2022, the trial court filed an entry journalizing its decision. Mr. Fedor
appeals from that entry and asserts the following assignments of error for our review:

              [I.] The Franklin County Prosecutor did not provide adequate
              notice of forfeiture in violation of Due Process.

              [II.] The trial court’s sentence violates the Double Jeopardy
              clause.

              [III.] The firearms rightfully belong to the innocent owner.

              [IV.] The property subject to forfeiture is disproportionate to
              the severity of the offense.

              [V.] The trial court’s sentence does not align with the policies
              and principles of R.C. 2929.12.

II. LEGAL ANALYSIS
       {¶ 9} This court has previously recognized there is “ ‘no rule that allows a party to
move a trial court for reconsideration of a final judgment.’ ” State v. Ranson, 10th Dist. No.
18AP-841, 2019-Ohio-2140, ¶ 12, quoting State v. Harbert, 9th Dist. No. 20955, 2002-
Ohio-6114, ¶ 24, citing Pitts v. Dept. of Transp., 67 Ohio St.2d 378, 381 (1981). As a result,
we have said that any party’s “ ‘request for reconsideration of a final judgment at the trial
court level is a nullity, as is any judgment or final order resulting from such a motion.’ ” Id.,
No. 22AP-386                                                                                  4

quoting State v. Ward, 5th Dist. No. 2005-CA-0092, 2007-Ohio-302, ¶ 19, citing State v.
Beaudry, 6th Dist. No. L-01-1288, 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 4874 (Nov. 2, 2001), citing Pitts
at 381.
          {¶ 10} The record in this case indicates that, instead of appealing from the trial
court’s May 10, 2022 judgment entry of sentence—which ordered all weapons be
confiscated and destroyed—Mr. Fedor filed a motion on May 12, 2022 asking the trial court
to reconsider its imposition of that component of his sentence. Such motion was a nullity,
however, because it asked the trial court to reconsider its final judgment. See, e.g., Ranson
at ¶ 12. As a result, the trial court’s June 23, 2022 entry ruling on that motion was likewise
a nullity in the proceedings below. See id.
          {¶ 11} On July 5, 2022—56 days after the trial court’s final judgment was entered—
Mr. Fedor filed a notice of appeal explicitly and exclusively identifying the trial court’s June
23 entry as the “ruling” from which he appeals in this case. Because the June 23 entry is a
nullity, the notice of appeal explicitly addressed only that entry, and Mr. Fedor did not
timely appeal from the May 10 final judgment entry under App.R. 4(A)(1), we find that “ ‘no
appeal lies and this appeal must be dismissed.’ ” Ranson at ¶ 12, quoting State v. Kendig,
10th Dist. No. 14AP-495, 2014-Ohio-5529, ¶ 6 (appellant's motion, which sought jail-time
credit for same period of confinement that was sought in earlier motion, was in effect a
motion for reconsideration of final judgment that denied earlier motion and, as such, a
nullity requiring dismissal of appeal).

III. CONCLUSION
          {¶ 12} Having determined appellant has not appealed from a final appealable order
or judgment, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

                                                                            Appeal dismissed.

                         LUPER SCHUSTER and BOGGS, JJ., concur.