2009 Ohio 217 | Ohio Ct. App. | 2009
{¶ 2} In 1995, Aleman pled guilty to two counts of aggravated murder and one count each of kidnapping and aggravated robbery. He was sentenced to life imprisonment.
{¶ 3} Aleman did not file a direct appeal. In 2006, he moved to file a delayed appeal, which was denied. State v. Aleman (June 28, 2006), Cuyahoga App. No. 88181.
{¶ 4} In April 2008, Aleman moved to withdraw his guilty plea and vacate his sentence, which the trial court denied that same month. Instead of appealing the denials, he filed a motion to "vacate and reenter judgment" on June 4, 2008, which the trial court also denied.
{¶ 5} Aleman filed a pro se appeal of the trial court's June decision, arguing in his sole assignment of error that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to vacate and reenter judgment.
{¶ 6} Aleman claims that he did not receive notice of the trial court's April denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and vacate his sentence; thus, he missed the time to appeal. However, he failed to move for a delayed appeal from those motions. Therefore, the motions to withdraw his guilty pleas and vacate his sentence are not properly before this court. *4
{¶ 7} Aleman's motion to "vacate and reenter judgment" is essentially a motion for the trial court to reconsider its judgment. However, a motion for reconsideration of a final order is a nullity. Pitts v. Dept.of Transp. (1981),
{¶ 8} A final order was entered on the motion to withdraw the guilty plea, and no appeal was sought. If Aleman was dissatisfied with the trial court's initial ruling, he could have appealed it within thirty days under App. R. 3 and 4. See State v. Sneed, Cuyahoga App. No. 84964,
{¶ 9} Although Aleman argues that he did not receive notice of the trial court's decision, the burden is on the parties to follow the progress of their case. Cardinal Fed. Sav. Bank v. Bambeck (Feb. 6, 1986), Cuyahoga App. No. 50093, citing *5 Zerovnik v. E.F. Hutton and Company, Inc. (June 7, 1984), Cuyahoga App. No. 47460. Pro se litigants are bound by the same rules and procedures as those litigants who retain counsel. State v. Zuranski, Cuyahoga App. No. 85091,
{¶ 10} Because Aleman seeks to appeal from a legal fiction, a motion to vacate and reenter judgment, we dismiss his appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant costs herein taxed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J., AND JAMES D. SWEENEY, J.*, CONCUR.