State v. Schrock
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State v. Schrock, 2017-Ohio-2723.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PORTAGE COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, : MEMORANDUM OPINION : CASE NO. 2016-P-0078 - vs - : MATTHEW M. SCHROCK, Defendant-Appellant. : : Criminal Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2013 CR 00164. Judgment: Appeal dismissed. Victor V. Vigluicci, Portage County Prosecutor, 241 South Chestnut Street, Ravenna, OH 44266 (For Plaintiff-Appellee). Matthew M. Schrock, pro se, Portage County Jail, 8204 Infirmary Road, Ravenna, OH 44266 (Defendant-Appellant). CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, P.J. {¶1} On December 5, 2016, appellant, Matthew M. Schrock, pro se, filed a notice of appeal from a November 21, 2016 judgment issued by the Portage County Court of Common Pleas denying his motion for judicial release without a hearing. {¶2} Pursuant to Article IV, Section 3(B)(2), of the Ohio Constitution, appellate courts have jurisdiction to review, affirm, modify, or reverse judgments or final orders from courts of record inferior to the court of appeals and from final orders or actions of administrative officers or agencies. {¶3} In State v. Coffman, 91 Ohio St.3d 125, 126, 2001-Ohio-273, the Supreme Court of Ohio expressly held that “a trial court’s denial of a motion for shock probation is never a final appealable order.” In addition, appellate courts in Ohio that have addressed this issue after Coffman have held that the same logic is applicable to a denial of a motion for judicial release since it mirrors shock probation. See State v. Woods, 141 Ohio App.3d 549, 550 (2001); State v. Williams, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 07AP-1035, 2008-Ohio-1906, at ¶8; State v. Mayle, 5th Dist. Morgan Nos. 07-CA-0006 and 07-CA-0007, 2008-Ohio-3761, at ¶13; State v. Greene, 2d Dist. Greene No. 02-CA-17, 2002-Ohio-2595, at ¶6. Since there is no right to judicial release, the denial of a motion for judicial release cannot affect a “substantial right” as that term is defined in R.C. 2505.02(A)(1). {¶4} Therefore, this appeal is hereby dismissed, sua sponte, for lack of a final appealable order. {¶5} Appeal dismissed. TIMOTHY P. CANNON, J., THOMAS R. WRIGHT, J., concur. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
