[Cite as State v. Dunkle, 2011-Ohio-6779.]
COURT OF APPEALS
LICKING COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES:
:
: Hon. John W. Wise, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. Julie A. Edwards, J.
: Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
-vs- :
: Case No. 11-CA-42
DAVID DUNKLE :
:
:
Defendant-Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Licking County Court of
Common Pleas Case No. 86-CR-16341
JUDGMENT: DISMISSED
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: December 19, 2011
APPEARANCES:
For Defendant-Appellant: For Plantiff-Appellee:
David Dunkle (Pro se) KENNETH W. OSWALT
Inmate No. R138-316 Licking County Prosecutor
Marion Correctional Institution 20 South Second Street
P.O. Box 57 Newark, Ohio 43055
Marion, Ohio 43302
[Cite as State v. Dunkle, 2011-Ohio-6779.]
Delaney, J.
{¶1} In 1986, Defendant-Appellant David Dunkle was sentenced in the Licking
County Court of Common Pleas to consecutive life sentences for multiple counts of
rape.
{¶2} On December 8, 2010, Appellant filed a pro se motion to suspend his
sentence. On December 15, 2010, the trial court construed the motion as one for
judicial release pursuant to R.C. 2929.20 and overruled the motion. On February 15,
2011, Appellant filed a motion for reconsideration. The trial court denied the motion on
March 18, 2011.
{¶3} Appellant filed a timely appeal and raises one Assignment of Error:
{¶4} “I. TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY DISMISSED RELIEF SOUGHT.”
I.
{¶5} We note this case comes to us on the accelerated calendar. App.R. 11.1,
which governs accelerated calendar cases, provides, in pertinent part:
{¶6} “(E) Determination and judgment on appeal. The appeal will be
determined as provided by App.R. 11.1. It shall be sufficient compliance with App.R.
12(A) for the statement of the reason for the court’s decision as to each error to be in
brief and conclusionary form. The decision may be by judgment in which case it will not
be published in any form.”
{¶7} This appeal shall be considered in accordance with the aforementioned
rule. We also note Plaintiff-Appellee did not file a responsive brief.
{¶8} Appellant appears to have sought and was denied judicial release in the
trial court. Appellant then requested that the trial court reconsider its ruling.
Licking County, Case No.11-CA-42 3
{¶9} We first note that the denial of a motion for judicial release is not a final
appealable order, as R.C. 2929.20 makes no provision for appellate review of a ruling
on such a motion. See also, State v. Williams, 10th Dist. No. 07AP-1035, 2008-Ohio-
1906. In addition, there is no authority for filing a motion for reconsideration of a
judgment at the trial court level in a criminal case.
{¶10} For these reasons, the present appeal is, sua sponte, dismissed.
By: Delaney, J.
Wise, P.J. and
Edwards, J. concur.
HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY
HON. JOHN W. WISE
HON. JULIE A. EDWARDS
[Cite as State v. Dunkle, 2011-Ohio-6779.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR LICKING COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO :
:
Plaintiff-Appellee :
:
:
-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY
:
DAVID DUNKLE :
:
Defendant-Appellant : Case No. 11-CA-42
:
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion on file, this
appeal is dismissed. Costs assessed to Appellant.
_________________________________
HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY
_________________________________
HON. JOHN W. WISE
_________________________________
HON. JULIE A. EDWARDS