Key v. Mitchell

81 Ohio St. 3d 89 · Ohio Supreme Court · Feb 18, 1998

Full text

Key v. Mitchell, Warden

Opinions in this case

Opinion — Per curiam
Majority

Per Curiam. In order to perfect an appeal from a court of appeals to the Supreme Court other than in a certified conflict case, the appellant must file a notice of appeal in this court within forty-five days from the entry of judgment being appealed. S.Ct.Prac.R. II(2)(A)(1). For the reasons that follow, we dismiss Key’s appeal because it was not properly perfected pursuant to S.Ct. Prac.R. II(2)(A)(1). First, Key did not file a timely appeal from the December 1996 court of appeals judgment dismissing his habeas corpus petition. In this appeal, Key challenges the December 1996 judgment dismissing his petition rather than the July 1997 court of appeals entry denying his Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment. Key did not file a notice of appeal in this court within forty-five days from the December 1996 judgment. Second, Key’s Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment did not extend the time for Key to appeal the December 1996 judgment. A Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment cannot be used as a [91] substitute for a timely appeal or as a means to extend the time for perfecting an appeal from the original judgment. State ex rel. Durkin v. Ungaro (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 191, 192, 529 N.E.2d 1268, 1269; State ex rel. McCoy v. Coyle (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 1430, 685 N.E.2d 542. All of Key’s claims could have been raised in a timely appeal from the December 1996 judgment of the court of appeals dismissing his petition. As we held in Durkin, 39 Ohio St.3d at 192-193, 529 N.E.2d at 1269: “[T]he city is essentially attempting to gain review of the January 16, 1986 judgment by appealing the denial of the [Civ.R. 60(B) ] motion to vacate [that] was rendered by the appellate court in February 1988. Such procedural devices cannot be used in order to obtain review of a judgment where a timely appeal was not filed. If we were to hold differently, judgments would never be final because a party could indirectly gain review of a judgment from which no timely appeal was taken by filing a motion for reconsideration or a [Civ.R. 60(B) ] motion to vacate judgment. For these reasons, we find appellee’s motion to dismiss to be well-taken and, therefore, the appeal by the city is hereby dismissed.” Accordingly, we dismiss Key’s appeal because it was not properly perfected. Appeal dismissed. Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnigk, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Notice

Freecase is a legal research tool. It does not determine whether a case is good law and does not provide legal advice.

Metadata

Status: Published
Author
Judges: Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnigk, Stratton, Sweeney
Cluster ID: 6883449

Citations

81 Ohio St. 3d 89
689 N.E.2d 548
1998 Ohio 643

Cited by

In re A.P.
Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 5, 2026
Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Wolfe
Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 23, 2026
Issa v. Cleveland Metro. School Dist.
Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 23, 2025
Heslop v. Heslop
Ohio Court of Appeals · May 29, 2025
Geothermal Professionals, Ltd. v. Kozlowski
Ohio Court of Appeals · May 5, 2025
Martin v. LexisNexis
Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 14, 2025
State v. Olman
Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 10, 2025
Navy Fed. Credit Union v. Mcafee
Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 11, 2024
In re Estate of Parks
Ohio Court of Appeals · May 13, 2024
Bukovec v. Keger
Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 28, 2024
Murray v. Auto Owners Ins.
Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 21, 2024
State v. Miller
Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 2, 2021

Parentheticals

finding that Civ.R. 60(B) relief was not available where the party’s “claims could have been raised in a timely appeal” from the trial court’s judgment
Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Wolfe
“A 3 Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment cannot be used * * * as a means to extend the time for perfecting an appeal from the original judgment.”
Lorain Natl. Bank v. Corna
“A Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment cannot be used as a substitute for a timely appeal or as a means to extend the time for perfecting an appeal from the original judgment.”
Murray v. Auto Owners Ins.
“A Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment cannot be used as a substitute for a timely appeal or as a means to extend the time for perfecting an appeal from the original judgment.”
State v. Olman
which in a different context had observed that a "Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment cannot be used as a substitute for a timely appeal or as a means to extend the time for perfecting an appeal from the original judgment"
State v. Boddie
which in a different context had observed that a “Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment cannot be used as a substitute for a timely appeal or as a means to extend the time for perfecting an appeal from the original judgment”
State v. Kennedy