{¶ 3} On July 8, 2003, appellant pleaded guilty to attempted murder and felonious assault and the firearm specifications. By sentencing entry filed September 23, 2003, the trial court sentenced appellant to an aggregate term of 19 years in prison. Upon remand by this Court for transcript irregularities, the trial court re-sentenced appellant on November 4, 2004, to the same 19-year term.
{¶ 4} On June 14, 2005, this Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court's re-sentencing entry of November 4, 2004. The matter was remanded to the trial court for further specification as to the amount of restitution.
{¶ 5} On April 7, 2006, pursuant to the remand of this Court, the trial court issued a judgment which set forth the specific amount of restitution owed by the appellant.
{¶ 6} On November 2, 2007, appellant filed a pro se motion titled, "Motion for Re-sentencing on Void Judgment and/or Appearance of Lack of Final Appealable Order." In the pro se motion for re-sentencing the appellant argued that his *3 constitutional rights were violated because the indictment was insufficient in that it stated that he was being charged with a "first degree felony" when in fact he had entered a plea to a second degree felony. It appears that he argued that this failure to properly state the degree of the felonious assault offense divested the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction and thereby his guilty plea had not been made knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily. On December 11, 2007, the appellee filed a timely response in opposition.
{¶ 7} On December 12, 2007, the trial court summarily denied the appellant's motion for re-sentencing without an oral hearing. It is from this judgment that appellant seeks to appeal pursuant to his notice of appeal filed on January 16, 2008.
{¶ 8} In his brief sets forth the following assignments of error:
{¶ 9} "I. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT DENIED APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR RESENTENCING ON VOID JUDGMENT AND/OR APPEARANCE OF FINAL APPEALABLE ORDER.
{¶ 10} "II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY ACCEPTING APPELLANT'S PLEA TO COUNT TWO OF THE INDICTMENT BECAUSE THE INDICTMENT WAS DEFECTIVE.
{¶ 11} "III. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PLAIN ERROR WHEN IT FAILED TO DEAL WITH EACH AND EVERY CHARGE PROSECUTED AGAINST THE DEFENDANT AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RESENTENCING ON VOID JUDGMENT AND/OR APPEARANCE OF LACK OF FINAL APPEALABLE ORDER PURSUANT TO CRIM. R.32 (C)." *4
{¶ 12} Before we entertain the assignments of error, we must first determine whether appellant has timely perfected his appeal and invoked the jurisdiction of this Court.
{¶ 13} In this case, appellant was convicted and sentenced in July of 2003, and exercised his right to a first appeal. Appellant now seeks to appeal the trial court's denial of his pro se, post conviction motion for re-sentencing from what appellant alleges is a void judgment of conviction.
{¶ 14} Although the trial court does not specify, the appellant's motion for re-sentencing was effectively a motion for post conviction relief pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 15} The post conviction relief process is a collateral civil attack on a criminal judgment, not an appeal of the judgment. Therefore, post-conviction proceedings are civil in nature and are not considered criminal proceedings. State v. Mapson (1987),
{¶ 16} Therefore, in order to perfect an appeal from a civil judgment denying post conviction relief, a party must file a notice of appeal as required by App. R. 3 "within thirty days of the later of entry of the judgment or order appealed or, in a civil case, service of the notice of judgment and its entry if service is not made on the party within the three day rule period in Rule 58(B) of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure." App. R. 4(A). The thirty (30) day time requirement for perfecting an appeal is jurisdictional in nature and may not be enlarged by an appellate court. State ex rel. Pendell v. Adams Cty. Bd. ofElections (1988),
{¶ 17} In this case, the trial court's judgment denying appellant's motion for re-sentencing (i.e. motion for post conviction relief), was filed on December 12, 2007. Appellant filed his notice of appeal thirty-five (35) days later on January 16, 2008. In appellant's merit brief, he acknowledges that the appeal is untimely and sets forth reasons for the delay.1 However, appellant's explanation does not cure his failure to properly pursue an appeal from the trial court's civil judgment. *6
{¶ 18} Upon review, we find appellant's appeal to be untimely filed. This Court cannot address the merits of appellant's untimely appeal. Accordingly, this matter is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
*7Edwards, J., Gwin, P.J. and Farmer, J. concur.