Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

STATE v. ASHBAUGH, 2015-Ohio-3201 (2015)

Court: Court of Appeals of Ohio Number: inohco20150811491 Visitors: 7
Filed: Aug. 06, 2015
Latest Update: Aug. 06, 2015
Summary: OPINION HOFFMAN , P.J. { 1} Defendant-appellant Lindsay F. Ashbaugh appeals the October 9, 2014 Journal Entry entered by the Fairfield Court of Common Pleas overruling her Motion to Dismiss for Violation of Constitutional Right to Speedy Trial. The state of Ohio is plaintiff-appellee. STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1 { 2} On August 14, 2012, the state filed two separate complaints in the Fairfield County Municipal Court against Appellant, alleging misdemeanor thefts. The state filed a nolle
More

OPINION

{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant Lindsay F. Ashbaugh appeals the October 9, 2014 Journal Entry entered by the Fairfield Court of Common Pleas overruling her Motion to Dismiss for Violation of Constitutional Right to Speedy Trial. The state of Ohio is plaintiff-appellee.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1

{¶ 2} On August 14, 2012, the state filed two separate complaints in the Fairfield County Municipal Court against Appellant, alleging misdemeanor thefts. The state filed a nolle prosequi on both charges on December 18, 2012.

{¶ 3} On February 7, 2014, the Fairfield County Grand Jury indicted Appellant on two counts of unauthorized use of computer property or services based upon the same facts and circumstances which gave rise to the two theft complaints previously dismissed in the Fairfield County Municipal Court. Such precipitated Appellant's motion to dismiss which was overruled by the trial court on October 9, 2014.

{¶ 4} It is from that decision Appellant prosecutes this appeal assigning as error:

{¶ 5} "I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN OVERRULING APPELLANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT FOR VIOLATION OF HER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL AS GUARANTEED BY THE SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND SECTION 10, ARTICLE I, OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION."

{¶ 6} No disposition has been made on the underlying criminal charges. We find this is an interlocutory appeal and no final appealable order exists.2 Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

FootNotes


1. A rendition of the facts is unnecessary for resolution of this appeal.
2. We find State v. Anderson, 138 Ohio St.3d 264, 2014-Ohio-542, distinguishable.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer