APPELLATE REVIEW - App.R. 4(A); thirty-day rule; untimely appeal.

[Cite as State v. Werfel, 2005-Ohio-1894.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

LAKE COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO, : MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff-Appellee, :

-vs- :

CASE NO. 2005-L-026

MATTHEW L. WERFEL, :

Defendant-Appellant.

Criminal Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 03 CR 000372.

Judgment: Appeal Dismissed.

Charles E. Coulson, Lake County Prosecutor, 105 Main Street, P.O. Box 490, Painesville, OH 44077 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).

Matthew L. Werfel, Pro Se, Lorain Correctional Institution, 2075 South Avon-Belden Road, Grafton, OH 44044 (Defendant-Appel ant).

CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J.,

On February 8, 2005, appellant, Matthew L. Werfel, filed a notice of appeal from a January 5, 2005 judgment of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas. Thus, appellant's notice of appeal was filed thirty-four days after the judgment had been issued by the trial court.

App.R. 4(A) states:

"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 or, in a civil

- 1 -

case, service of the notice of judgment and its entry if service is not made on the party within the three day period in Rule 58(B) of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure."

App.R. 5(A) provides, in relevant part:

"(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 fol owing classes of cases:

"(a) Criminal proceedings;

"(b) Delinquency proceedings; and

"(c) Serious youthful offender proceedings.

"(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 appel ant to perfect an appeal as of right."

In the present case, appellant has neither complied with the thirty- day rule set forth in App.R. 4(A) nor sought leave to appeal. Thus, this court is without jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

Based upon the foregoing analysis, this appeal is hereby sua sponte dismissed as untimely.

Appeal dismissed.

WILLIAM M. O'NEILL, .J., DIANE V. GRENDELL, J., concur.

- 2 -