[Cite as State v. Grenter, 2013-Ohio-3208.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
ASHTABULA COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO, : MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
CASE NO. 2013-A-0009
- vs - :
ARTHUR A. GRENTER, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
Criminal Appeal from the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2007
CR 433.
Judgment: Appeal dismissed.
Thomas L. Sartini, Ashtabula County Prosecutor, Ashtabula County Courthouse, 25
West Jefferson Street, Jefferson, OH 44047-1092 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
Arthur A. Grenter, pro se, PID: 552-453, Marion Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 540,
Marion, OH 43301-0057 (Defendant-Appellant).
TIMOTHY P. CANNON, P.J.
{¶1} On February 15, 2013, appellant, Arthur A. Grenter, filed a pro se motion
for leave to file a delayed appeal pursuant to App.R. 5(A). Along with his motion,
appellant filed a notice of appeal from a September 24, 2012 judgment of the Ashtabula
County Court of Common Pleas, overruling his motions to unseal his pre-sentence
investigation, for findings of fact and conclusions of law, and to vacate “multiple void
judgments.”
{¶2} Appellee, the state of Ohio, filed a response in opposition on February 22,
2013.
{¶3} App.R. 4(A) states, in part, that “[a] party shall file the notice of appeal
required by App.R. 3 within thirty days of the later of entry of the judgment or order
appealed * * *.”
{¶4} In this case, Mr. Grenter’s notice of appeal was due by October 24, 2012.
However, it was not filed until February 15, 2013. Thus, it is untimely by nearly four
months.
{¶5} App.R. 5(A) states, in part:
{¶6} (1) After the expiration of the thirty day period provided by App.R.
4(A) for the filing of a notice of appeal as of right, an appeal may be
taken by a defendant with leave of the court to which the appeal is
taken in the following classes of cases:
{¶7} (a) Criminal proceedings;
{¶8} ***
{¶9} (2) A motion for leave to appeal shall be filed with the court of
appeals and shall set forth the reasons for the failure of the
appellant to perfect an appeal as of right. Concurrently with the
filing of the motion, the movant shall file with the clerk of the trial
court a notice of appeal in the form prescribed by App.R. 3 and
shall file a copy of the notice of the appeal in the court of appeals. *
**
2
{¶10} In his motion, appellant asserts that his appeal is untimely because,
“[d]uring the time period of the months of July to December 2012 and beyond,” he
suffered from physical and mental health issues, was deprived of medication, and was
under suicide watch, all of which hindered his pursuit of “meaningfully continuing” his
case in a timely manner. However, we note that during those six months, appellant was
capable of filing two other appeals with this court (11th Dist. No. 2012-A-0046, 2012-
Ohio-5596, filed September 14, 2012; and 11th Dist No. 2012-A-0050, 2012-Ohio-6128,
filed October 26, 2012); two appeals with the Ohio Supreme Court (133 Ohio St.3d
1489, 2012-Ohio-5459, filed August 17, 2012; and 134 Ohio St.3d 1418, 2013-Ohio-
158, filed September 13, 2012); and numerous motions with the Ashtabula County
Court of Common Pleas in the underlying case, three of which are now the subject of
this motion for delayed appeal (filed August 23, 2012, and September 14, 2012).
Although we would not require appellant to attach confidential medical records to his
motion in order to corroborate his asserted infirmities, we must not turn a blind eye to
the entire record of proceedings appellant has himself put before this court.
{¶11} Appellant has a constitutional right to appeal his conviction. However, this
appeal concerns motions to unseal a pre-sentence investigative report, for findings of
fact and conclusions of law, and to vacate “multiple void judgments.” Appellant’s
belated direct appeal of his conviction, along with a motion for delayed appeal, was filed
on December 14, 2011—over three years after his August 7, 2008 conviction and
sentence. State v. Grenter, 11th Dist. No. 2011-A-0071, 2012-Ohio-297. This court, in
its sound discretion, denied his motion for a delayed appeal of his conviction at that
3
time. Id. A constitutional right to appeal does not mean that one can ignore the rules of
practice and procedure.
{¶12} We further note that since 2011, appellant has filed no less than five
appeals, all pro se, from the same trial court case. He has brought timely appeals on
other matters and has prosecuted two previous appeals with this court entirely on his
own. State v. Grenter, 11th Dist. No. 2011-A-0013, 2011-Ohio-6003; State v. Grenter,
11th Dist. No. 2011-A-0076, 2012-Ohio-3419. Appellant should know better than most
what is necessary to timely perfect an appeal. His self-serving, uncorroborated
assertions that he has mental and physical infirmities that prevented him from
complying with the requirement to timely file an appeal fall short of what is necessary to
allow a delayed appeal under App.R. 5(A).
{¶13} In addition, appellant has provided nothing to indicate why allowing this
delayed appeal would prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice. An appeal of the trial
court judgment of September 24, 2012, appears to be simply a rehashing of prior
arguments presented by appellant.
{¶14} Accordingly, it is ordered that appellant’s pro se motion for leave to file a
delayed appeal is hereby overruled.
{¶15} Appeal dismissed.
CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J.,
COLLEEN MARY O’TOOLE, J.,
concur.
4