State v. Dunkle
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State v. Dunkle, 2011-Ohio-6779.] COURT OF APPEALS LICKING COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee -vsDAVID DUNKLE Defendant-Appellant : : : : : : : : : : : JUDGES: Hon. John W. Wise, P.J. Hon. Julie A. Edwards, J. Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. Case No. 11-CA-42 OPINION CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Licking County Court of Common Pleas Case No. 86-CR-16341 JUDGMENT: DISMISSED DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: December 19, 2011 APPEARANCES: For Defendant-Appellant: For Plantiff-Appellee: David Dunkle (Pro se) Inmate No. R138-316 Marion Correctional Institution P.O. Box 57 Marion, Ohio 43302 KENNETH W. OSWALT Licking County Prosecutor 20 South Second Street Newark, Ohio 43055 [Cite as State v. Dunkle, 2011-Ohio-6779.] Delaney, J. {¶1} In 1986, Defendant-Appellant David Dunkle was sentenced in the Licking County Court of Common Pleas to consecutive life sentences for multiple counts of rape. {¶2} On December 8, 2010, Appellant filed a pro se motion to suspend his sentence. On December 15, 2010, the trial court construed the motion as one for judicial release pursuant to R.C. 2929.20 and overruled the motion. On February 15, 2011, Appellant filed a motion for reconsideration. The trial court denied the motion on March 18, 2011. {¶3} Appellant filed a timely appeal and raises one Assignment of Error: {¶4} I. TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY DISMISSED RELIEF SOUGHT. I. {¶5} We note this case comes to us on the accelerated calendar. App.R. 11.1, which governs accelerated calendar cases, provides, in pertinent part: {¶6} (E) Determination and judgment on appeal. The appeal will be determined as provided by App.R. 11.1. It shall be sufficient compliance with App.R. 12(A) for the statement of the reason for the court s decision as to each error to be in brief and conclusionary form. The decision may be by judgment in which case it will not be published in any form. {¶7} This appeal shall be considered in accordance with the aforementioned rule. We also note Plaintiff-Appellee did not file a responsive brief. {¶8} Appellant appears to have sought and was denied judicial release in the trial court. Appellant then requested that the trial court reconsider its ruling. Licking County, Case No.11-CA-42 {¶9} 3 We first note that the denial of a motion for judicial release is not a final appealable order, as R.C. 2929.20 makes no provision for appellate review of a ruling on such a motion. See also, State v. Williams, 10th Dist. No. 07AP-1035, 2008-Ohio1906. In addition, there is no authority for filing a motion for reconsideration of a judgment at the trial court level in a criminal case. {¶10} For these reasons, the present appeal is, sua sponte, dismissed. By: Delaney, J. Wise, P.J. and Edwards, J. concur. HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY HON. JOHN W. WISE HON. JULIE A. EDWARDS [Cite as State v. Dunkle, 2011-Ohio-6779.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR LICKING COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee -vsDAVID DUNKLE Defendant-Appellant : : : : : : : : : : : JUDGMENT ENTRY Case No. 11-CA-42 For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion on file, this appeal is dismissed. Costs assessed to Appellant. _________________________________ HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY _________________________________ HON. JOHN W. WISE _________________________________ HON. JULIE A. EDWARDS
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.
