Court Opinion

ID: 9904773
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-27 20:06:46.103098+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:25.444577
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Santos, 2023-Ohio-4268.]

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

STATE OF OHIO,                                     CASE NO. 2023-P-0073

                  Plaintiff-Appellee,
                                                   Criminal Appeal from the
         - vs -                                    Court of Common Pleas

JOSE FRANCISCO FLORES SANTOS,
                                                   Trial Court No. 2016 CR 00199
                  Defendant-Appellant.

                                         MEMORANDUM
                                           OPINION

                                     Decided: November 27, 2023
                                     Judgment: Appeal dismissed.

Victor V. Vigluicci, Portage County Prosecutor, 241 South Chestnut Street, Ravenna,
OH 44266 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).

Jose Francisco Flores Santos, pro se, PID# A691-704, Richland Correctional Institution,
1001 Olivesburg Road, P.O. Box 8107, Mansfield, OH 44905 (Defendant-Appellant).

MARY JANE TRAPP, J.

         {¶1}     On September 27, 2023, appellant, pro se, filed a notice of appeal and

motion for leave to file a delayed appeal.           Appellant appeals from the trial court’s

November 14, 2016 entry sentencing him to serve an aggregate prison term of 20 years

after he entered a plea of guilty to two counts of aggravated vehicular homicide.

         {¶2}     A timely notice of appeal was due no later than December 14, 2016, which

was not a holiday or a weekend. The appeal has been untimely filed by almost seven

years.
          {¶3}   No brief or response in opposition to the motion has been filed.

          {¶4}   A party who wishes to appeal from a final order shall file the notice of appeal

within thirty days of that entry. App.R. 4(A)(1).

          {¶5}   App.R. 5(A) provides in relevant part:

          {¶6}   “(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:

          {¶7}   “(a) Criminal proceedings; * * *

          {¶8}   “(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.

* * *.”

          {¶9}   As reason for the delay in filing his appeal, appellant states that he was not

notified of his right to appointed counsel and his right to appeal. Also, he is not fluent in

English, and he did not understand his appellate rights until after meeting with a Spanish

speaking inmate who explained his rights.

          {¶10} The precedent of this court is that the reason for failing to perfect an appeal

as of right must be valid—i.e., the reason for delay must justify the length of time it took

to initiate an appeal. See State v. Jude, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2019-A-0012, 2019-

Ohio-928, ¶ 6; State v. Solomon, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2018-P-0057, 2018-Ohio-3965,

¶ 14.

          {¶11} Appellant’s reasons might justify a reasonable delay of time in filing his

appeal. However, given the length of time of almost seven years before initiating an

appeal, it is evident that appellant was not diligent in taking the proper steps to protect his

                                                2

Case No. 2023-P-0073
own rights. In addition, the trial court docket reflects that appellant filed a pro se motion

to correct jail time in 2018, evidencing that he had some understanding of how to file

pleadings.

       {¶12} Thus, it is ordered that appellant’s motion for leave to file a delayed appeal

is hereby overruled, and the appeal is dismissed.

MATT LYNCH, J.,

EUGENE A. LUCCI, J.,

concur.

                                             3

Case No. 2023-P-0073