STATE v. BEAUREGARD, Unpublished Decision (7-21-2005)

2005-Ohio-3722

State of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael Beauregard (No. 85402), Kimaudura Pullie (No. 85403), Marie Dearmond (No. 85404), Samuel Teasley (No. 85405), Defendants-Appellees.

Nos. 85402, 85403, 85404, 85405.Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County.
July 21, 2005.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

Criminal appeal from Common Pleas Court Case No. CR-452110.

Dismissed.

William D. Mason, Esq., Cuyahoga County Prosecutor, Martina Kulick, Esq., Assistant County Prosecutor, The Justice Center — 9th Floor, 1200 Ontario Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44113, for plaintiff-appellant.

Robert L. Tobik, Esq., Cuyahoga County Public Defender, Paul Kuzmins, Esq., Assistant Public Defender, 1200 West Third Street, 100 Lakeside Place, Cleveland, Ohio 44113, for defendant-appellee, Michael Beauregard.

Elizabeth Kelley, Esq., 13938A Cedar Road, Suite No. 285, Cleveland, Ohio 44118-3204, for defendant-appellee, Kimaudura Pullie.

Marie Dearmond, Pro Se, 2219 Payne Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44112, for defendant-appellee, Marie Dearmond.

Ralph T. DeFranco, Esq., 75 Public Square, Suite No. 1320, Cleveland, Ohio 44113, for defendant-appellee, Samuel Teasley.

JOURNAL ENTRY and OPINION
MICHAEL J. CORRIGAN, JUDGE.

{¶ 1} The state appeals from a dismissal of four separate criminal indictments on grounds that it failed to produce at a pretrial an out-of-state witness. We dismiss the appeal for want of a final, appealable order because the order itself is considered to be without prejudice. See City of Fairview Park v. Fleming (Dec. 7, 2000), Cuyahoga App. Nos. 77323 and 77324 (dismissal of a criminal complaint cannot be considered a proceeding ancillary to the action; therefore, the dismissal of a criminal complaint, without prejudice, is not a final order, and the court lacks jurisdiction to consider it); State v. Steel, Cuyahoga App. No. 85076, 2005-Ohio-2623 at ¶ 6.

{¶ 2} This appeal is dismissed.

It is, therefore, ordered that appellees recover of appellant their costs herein taxed.

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Calabrese, Jr., P.J., Kilbane, J., Concur.

jdjungle

Share
Published by
jdjungle

Recent Posts

CUSPIDE PROPERTIES, LTD. v. EARL MECHANICAL SERVICES, INC., 53 N.E.3d 818 (2015)

53 N.E.3d 818 (2015)2015-Ohio-5019 CUSPIDE PROPERTIES, LTD., Appellee/Cross-Appellant v. EARL MECHANICAL SERVICES, Inc., Appellant/Cross-Appellee v.…

2 years ago

McCAMMON v. COOPER, 69 Ohio St. 366 (1904)

McCammon v. Cooper, 69 Ohio St. 366 (1904) Jan. 5, 1904 · Supreme Court of Ohio · No. 8237…

5 years ago

BANK OF AM., N.A. v. SMITH, 2018-Ohio-3638

[Cite as Bank of Am., N.A. v. Smith, 2018-Ohio-3638.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST…

7 years ago

STATE v. MARCUM, 2018-Ohio-1009 (2018)

[Cite as State v. Marcum, 2018-Ohio-1009.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF…

8 years ago

In re A.F., 2018-Ohio-310 (Oh. App. 1/26/2018)

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY IN RE: :…

8 years ago

Ohio Attorney General Opinion No. 2017-007

March 13, 2017 The Honorable Paul J. Gains Mahoning County Prosecuting Attorney 6th Floor Administration…

8 years ago