In re M.N.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as In re M.N., 2010-Ohio-4978.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT GEAUGA COUNTY, OHIO IN THE MATTER OF: M.N., DELINQUENT CHILD : MEMORANDUM OPINION : CASE NO. 2010-G-2962 : : : Criminal Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, Case No. 09 JD 000015. Judgment: Appeal dismissed. David P. Joyce, Geauga County Prosecutor, Courthouse Annex, 231 Main Street, Chardon, OH 44024 (For Appellee, State of Ohio). Donald P. Mitchell, Jr., 3766 Fishcreek Road, #267, Stow, OH 44224 (For Appellant, M.N.). CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J., {¶1} This matter is before this court upon an appeal filed April 14, 2010, from a March 22, 2010 entry of the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division. The entry indicates as follows: {¶2} This matter came on for Disposition Hearing on the 22nd day of March, 2010. [M.N.] having been given due notice of the hearing, did fail to appear. It is therefore ordered that a bench warrant be issued for the arrest of [M.N.], and that he be required to additionally show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court for failing to appear pursuant to summons. {¶3} On April 20, 2010, appellee, State of Ohio, filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as not being a final appealable order. {¶4} No brief or response in opposition to the motion has been filed. {¶5} The Ohio Legislature in R.C. 2505.02(B) has set forth six categories of a final order for purposes of the constitutional provision, and if a trial court s judgment satisfies any of the categories, it will be considered a final order which can be immediately appealed and reviewed by a court of appeals. {¶6} R.C. 2505.02(B) states that: {¶7} An order is a final order that may be reviewed, affirmed, modified, or reversed, with or without retrial, when it is one of the following: {¶8} (1) An order that affects a substantial right in an action that in effect determines the action and prevents a judgment; {¶9} (2) An order that affects a substantial right made in a special proceeding or upon a summary application in an action after judgment; {¶10} (3) An order that vacates or sets aside a judgment or grants a new trial; {¶11} (4) An order that grants or denies a provisional remedy and to which both of the following apply: {¶12} (a) The order in effect determines the action with respect to the provisional remedy and prevents a judgment in the action in favor of the appealing party with respect to the provisional remedy. 2 {¶13} (b) The appealing party would not be afforded a meaningful or effective remedy by an appeal following final judgment as to all proceedings, issues, claims, and parties in the action. {¶14} (5) An order that determines that an action may or may not be maintained as a class action; {¶15} (6) An order determining the constitutionality of any changes to the Revised Code ***. {¶16} In the present case, appellant is appealing a bench warrant that the trial court issued as a result of his failure to appear at the dispositional hearing. As appellee correctly asserts, the appealed entry does not fit into any of the categories in R.C. 2505.02 for being a final appealable order. See Pavarini v. Pavarini (Mar. 26, 1993), 11th Dist. No. 93-G-1750. Therefore, this court lacks jurisdiction. {¶17} Appellee s motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is dismissed. COLLEEN MARY O TOOLE, J., TIMOTHY P. CANNON, J., concur. 3
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.
