State v. Melton
2016 Ohio 7444
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Defendant-appellant Gregory D. Melton, Jr., pro se, filed a motion for leave to file a delayed appeal and a notice of appeal dated July 20, 2016, challenging a sentence in Lake C.P. No. 08 CR 000499.
- Melton indicated he had previously appealed his conviction and sentence in State v. Melton, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2009-L-078, 2010-Ohio-1278, which resulted in an affirmed judgment.
- The State opposed the motion, noting Melton already had appealed the sentencing entry and therefore could not use App.R. 5(A) for a successive appeal.
- App.R. 5(A) permits an appeal by leave after the 30-day appeal period expires but has been interpreted to prohibit delayed appeals that amount to successive appeals from the same judgment.
- The court relied on precedent holding App.R. 5(A) cannot be used to pursue successive appeals from a judgment previously appealed as of right.
- The Eleventh District overruled Melton’s motion for leave to file a delayed appeal and dismissed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether App.R. 5(A) permits a delayed appeal when the defendant previously appealed the same sentencing entry | State: Appellant already appealed the sentencing entry; App.R. 5(A) cannot be used for successive appeals | Melton: Seeks leave to file a delayed appeal of his sentence despite the prior appeal | Motion for leave denied; appeal dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Haynes v. State, 111 Ohio App.3d 244 (1996) (App.R. 5(A) cannot be used to maintain a successive appeal from the same judgment)