M ORE L AW
LEXAPEDIA
Salus Populi Suprema Lex Esto

Information
About MoreLaw
Contact MoreLaw

Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 04-13-2019

Case Style:

STATE OF OHIO - vs - KELSIE MARIE BLANKENSHIP

Case Number: 2019-A-0018

Judge: THOMAS R. WRIGHT

Court: COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ASHTABULA COUNTY, OHIO

Plaintiff's Attorney: Nicholas A. Iarocci, Ashtabula County Prosecutor, and Shelley M. Pratt, Assistant Prosecutor

Defendant's Attorney: Marie Lane, Ashtabula County Public Defender

Description:





Appellant argues the appealed judgment is a final appealable order.
Appellee argues to the contrary and seeks dismissal.
2
{¶3} “The Ohio Constitution grants courts of appeals jurisdiction ‘to review and
affirm, modify, or reverse judgments or final orders.’” Smith v. Chen, 142 Ohio St.3d
411, 2015-Ohio-1480, ¶8, quoting Ohio Constitution, Art. IV, Sec. 3(B)(2); R.C. 2953.02
(a court of appeals only possesses jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a criminal case if
the appeal is from a final judgment or order); R.C. 2505.02.
{¶4} An order finding a party incompetent to stand trial and committing him or
her to an institution is a final appealable order. State v. Upshaw, 110 Ohio St.3d 189,
2006-Ohio-4253. However, an order requiring a defendant to undergo a competency
evaluation is not a final appealable order. State v. Eyajan, 11th Dist. Ashtabula Nos.
2019-A-0005, 2019-A-0006, 2019-A-0007, 2019-A-0008, 2019-A-0009, 2019-A-0010,
2019-Ohio-419. Similarly, an order finding a party competent to stand trial is not a final
appealable order because an appeal after disposition of the case provides an adequate
remedy. State v. Shine, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 15 MA 0210, 2016-Ohio-1445; In the
Matter of J.W., 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2009-G-2939, 2010-Ohio-707.
{¶5} In her memorandum, appellant contends that the appealed order is final
and qualifies as a provisional remedy under R.C. 2505.02(B)(4) because it requires
disclosure of protected attorney-client communication. Appellant, however, has not
been ordered to disclose communications with her attorney. Moreover, although a
competency determination is a provisional remedy, this finding alone does not satisfy
R.C. 2505.02(B)(4). Instead, to constitute a final order, a provisional remedy must,
absent immediate appeal, deny appellant a meaningful and effective remedy. In re
J.W., 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2009-G-2939, 2010-Ohio-707, ¶15.

Outcome: Therefore, the appeal is hereby dismissed for lack of a final appealable
order.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



 
 
Home | Add Attorney | Add Expert | Add Court Reporter | Sign In
Find-A-Lawyer By City | Find-A-Lawyer By State and City | Articles | Recent Lawyer Listings
Verdict Corrections | Link Errors | Advertising | Editor | Privacy Statement
© 1996-2019 MoreLaw, Inc. - All rights reserved.