MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS, 71 Ohio St.3d 1484 (1995)

646 N.E.2d 177-180Supreme Court of Ohio.
1995.

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSIALS Monday, February 27, 1995 94-1833. State ex rel. Babione v. Martin. Lucas County, No. L-93-260. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Lucas County. Upon consideration of the joint application for dismissal,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that said application be, and the same is hereby, granted.

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed.

94-2722. State ex rel. Taylor v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth Franklin County, No. 94APD07-971. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County. Upon consideration of appellant’s application for dismissal,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that said application be, and the same is hereby, granted.

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed.

95-98. State ex rel. Electrolert, Inc. v. Lindeman. Miami County, No. 94CA59. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Miami County. Upon consideration of appellant’s application for dismissal,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that said application be, and the same is hereby, granted.

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed.

95-150. Colter v. H.U. Tuttle Co., Inc. Allen County, No. CA94080052. This cause is pending before the court as a discretionary appeal from the Court of Appeals for Allen County. Upon consideration of the joint application for dismissal,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that said application be, and the same is hereby, granted.

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed.

95-407. State v. Rives. Cuyahoga County, No. 54953. Appellant has filed an untimely appeal of the court of appeals’ decision denying his application for reopening pursuant to App.R. 26(B), and a motion for delayed appeal. This appeal involves a civil, post-conviction matter and not an appeal of a felony case to which the provisions for delayed appeal in S.Ct.Prac.R. II(2)(A)(4) apply. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that the motion for delayed appeal be, and hereby is, stricken.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that, in that appellant failed to perfect an appeal pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. II(2)(A)(1), this case be, and hereby is, dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

95-408. State v. Poole. Allen County, No. 1-86-43. Appellant has filed an untimely appeal of the court of appeals’ decision denying his application for reopening pursuant to App.R. 26(B), and a motion for delayed appeal. This appeal involves a civil, post-conviction matter and not an appeal of a felony case to which the provisions for delayed appeal in S.Ct.Prac.R. II(2)(A)(4) apply. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that the motion for delayed appeal be, and hereby is, stricken.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that, in that appellant failed to perfect an appeal pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. II(2)(A)(1), this case be, and hereby is, dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Page 1485

95-411. State v. Henderly. Lucas County, No. L-94-128. Appellant has filed an untimely appeal of the court of appeals’ decision affirming the denial of appellant’s petition for post-conviction relief, and a motion for delayed appeal. This appeal involves a civil, post-conviction matter and not an appeal of a felony case to which the provisions for delayed appeal in S.Ct.Prac.R. II(2)(A)(4) apply. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that the motion for delayed appeal be, and hereby is, stricken.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that, in that appellant failed to perfect an appeal pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. II(2)(A)(1), this case be, and hereby is, dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

95-413. State v. Seiber. Cuyahoga County, No. 63717. Appellant has filed an untimely appeal of the court of appeals’ decision denying his motion for reconsideration pursuant to App.R. 26(A) or for reopening pursuant to App.R. 26(B), relating to post-conviction proceedings, and a motion for delayed appeal. This appeal involves a civil, post-conviction matter and not an appeal of a felony case to which the provisions for delayed appeal in S.Ct.Prac.R. II(2)(A)(4) apply. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that the motion for delayed appeal be, and hereby is, stricken.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that, in that appellant failed to perfect an appeal pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. II(2)(A)(1), this case be, and hereby is, dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

95-414. State v. Anderson. Sandusky County, No. S-91-26. Appellant has filed an untimely appeal of the court of appeals’ decision denying his motion for delayed reconsideration, and a motion for delayed appeal. This appeal involves a civil, post-conviction matter and not an appeal of a felony case to which the provisions for delayed appeal in S.Ct.Prac.R. II(2)(A)(4) apply. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that the motion for delayed appeal be, and hereby is, stricken.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that, in that appellant failed to perfect an appeal pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. II(2)(A)(1), this case be, and hereby is, dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.