State v. Jones
Docket 2026-A-0019
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- Ohio
- Court
- Ohio Court of Appeals
- Type
- Opinion
- Case type
- Criminal Appeal
- Disposition
- Dismissed
- Judge
- Patton
- Citation
- State v. Jones, 2026-Ohio-1448
- Docket
- 2026-A-0019
Appeal from an April 2, 2026 trial-court judgment entry addressing a defendant's motion to disclose exculpatory evidence in a criminal case
Summary
The Court of Appeals dismissed Odraye G. Jones’s pro se appeal from an April 2, 2026 trial-court entry requiring the State to disclose exculpatory evidence. The appellate court held it lacked jurisdiction because the trial court’s order was interlocutory and not a final, appealable order under Ohio law. The court also concluded, alternatively, that Jones lacked standing because the trial court’s ruling granted him the relief he sought, so he was not an aggrieved party. All pending motions were ruled moot and the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues Decided
- Whether the trial court's April 2, 2026 entry regarding disclosure of exculpatory evidence was a final, appealable order
- Whether the appellant had standing (was aggrieved) to appeal the trial court's disclosure ruling
Court's Reasoning
The court applied Ohio's final-order framework (R.C. 2505.02(B)) and concluded the April 2 entry was interlocutory because it did not dispose of the case or fall within any statutory category of final orders. The court also relied on the aggrievement requirement for appeals, finding Jones received the relief he requested (an order compelling disclosure), so he was not prejudiced or aggrieved and therefore lacked standing to appeal. Because of lack of jurisdiction, the appeal was dismissed and pending motions were rendered moot.
Authorities Cited
- R.C. 2505.02(B)
- Noble v. Colwell44 Ohio St.3d 92 (1989)
- Gen. Acc. Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am.44 Ohio St.3d 17 (1989)
- Ohio Contract Carriers Ass'n v. Pub. Utilities Comm.140 Ohio St. 160 (1942)
- State ex rel. Richardson v. Suster130 Ohio St.3d 82 (2011)
Parties
- Appellant
- Odraye G. Jones a.k.a. Malik Allah-U-Akbar
- Appellee
- State of Ohio
- Judge
- Robert J. Patton
- Judge
- Matt Lynch, P.J.
- Judge
- Eugene A. Lucci
- Attorney
- Kara Keating (Special Prosecutor)
- Attorney
- Daniel Kasaris (Special Prosecutor)
- Attorney
- Erik Spitzer (Special Prosecutor)
Key Dates
- Trial court judgment entry appealed
- 2026-04-02
- Court of Appeals decision
- 2026-04-22
- Scheduled resentencing jury empanelment
- 2026-04-23
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Proceed in trial court
The parties should continue with the resentencing phase and any pretrial proceedings in the Court of Common Pleas, including compliance with the disclosure order.
- 2
Ensure discovery compliance
Defense counsel should monitor the State's compliance with its continuing obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence and bring any specific discovery disputes promptly to the trial court's attention.
- 3
Consider appeals strategy
If a final, appealable order is entered later, counsel should evaluate whether to appeal from that final order rather than from interlocutory rulings.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the appeals court decide?
- The court dismissed the appeal because the trial-court order on disclosure was not a final order and the defendant was not an aggrieved party, so the appeals court lacked jurisdiction.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- The decision affects the appellant, Odraye Jones, and the State because the interlocutory disclosure ruling remains in the trial court for further proceedings.
- What happens next in the criminal case?
- Proceedings in the trial court continue, including the scheduled resentencing jury empanelment; the trial court retains authority to enforce disclosure obligations.
- Can this dismissal be appealed further?
- Because the appeals court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the proper path is to wait for a final, appealable order from the trial court or seek other authorized relief; immediate further appeal to this court is unlikely to succeed.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
[Cite as State v. Jones, 2026-Ohio-1448.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
ASHTABULA COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 2026-A-0019
Plaintiff-Appellee,
Criminal Appeal from the
- vs - Court of Common Pleas
ODRAYE G. JONES a.k.a.
MALIK ALLAH-U-AKBAR, Trial Court No. 1997 CR 00221
Defendant-Appellant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
Decided: April 22, 2026
Judgment: Appeal dismissed
Dave Yost, Ohio Attorney General, Kara Keating, Daniel Kasaris, and Erik Spitzer,
Special Prosecutors, 30 E. Broad Street, 23rd Floor, Columbus, OH 43215 (For Plaintiff-
Appellee).
Odraye G. Jones, pro se, Ashtabula County Jail, 25 W. Jefferson Street, Jefferson, OH
44047 (Defendant-Appellant).
ROBERT J. PATTON, J.
{¶1} Appellant, Odraye G. Jones (“Jones”), filed a pro se appeal from an April 2,
2026, judgment entry regarding Jones’s motion to disclose exculpatory evidence.
Appellee, the State of Ohio (“State”), filed a motion to strike the notice of appeal. The
State has also filed a motion for emergency stay of trial court proceedings pending our
decision on their previously filed motion to strike. We note that the Ashtabula County
Court of Common Pleas is scheduled to empanel a jury for the resentencing phase in the
underlying case on April 23, 2026, where Jones is represented by counsel.
{¶2} Since this court may only entertain those appeals from final judgments, we
must determine whether there is a final appealable order. Noble v. Colwell, 44 Ohio St.3d
92, 96 (1989). A trial court’s judgment can be immediately reviewed by an appellate court
only if it constitutes a “final order” in the action. Ohio Const., art. IV, § 3(B)(2); Radic v.
Sternadel, 2025-Ohio-4527, ¶ 2 (11th Dist.). If a lower court’s judgment is not final, then
this court does not have jurisdiction to review the case, and the case must be dismissed.
Gen. Acc. Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 44 Ohio St.3d 17, 20 (1989).
{¶3} R.C. 2505.02(B) defines a “final order” and sets forth nine categories of
appealable judgments, and if a trial court’s judgment satisfies any of them, it will be
deemed a “final order” and can be immediately appealed and reviewed. In this case, the
April 2, 2026 judgment entry being appealed does not fit within any of the categories for
being a final order under R.C. 2505.02(B) and did not dispose of all claims.
{¶4} The trial court’s ruling merely addressed appellant’s motion for disclosure
and, in substance, reiterated the state’s ongoing obligation to comply with its discovery
duties. Such a ruling is interlocutory in nature and does not determine the action, prevent
a judgment, or affect a substantial right in a manner that would foreclose appropriate relief
in a subsequent appeal.
{¶5} Accordingly, because the challenged entry neither disposes of the case nor
fits within any statutory category of a final, appealable order, it remains an interlocutory
ruling over which this court lacks jurisdiction. In the absence of a final order, the appeal
must be dismissed. Gen. Acc. Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 44 Ohio St.3d 17, 20 (1989).
{¶6} Assuming arguendo the April 2, 2026, judgment entry was final and
appealable, we conclude that Jones lacks standing to challenge the entry for lack of
PAGE 2 OF 4
Case No. 2026-A-0019
aggrievement. “It is a fundamental rule that to be entitled to institute appeal or error
proceedings a person must have a present interest in the subject-matter of the litigation
and must be aggrieved or prejudiced by the judgment[.]” Ohio Contract Carriers Ass'n v.
Pub. Utilities Comm., 140 Ohio St. 160, 161 (1942). “Without standing, a party’s appeal
must be dismissed.” Reese v. Reese, 2019-Ohio-2810, ¶ 8 (1st Dist.).
{¶7} This principle applies with equal force in criminal cases. See State ex rel.
Richardson v. Suster, 130 Ohio St.3d 82, fn. 1, (2011) (holding that a criminal defendant
lacked standing to challenge a portion of a ruling that granted him relief, explaining that a
party is not aggrieved by a favorable order even if he disputes the reasoning underlying
it.)
{¶8} Here, the trial court granted Jones’s request for disclosure of exculpatory
evidence, albeit noting that Jones failed to specify what evidence had not yet been turned
over. The trial court explicitly reminded the State of its continuing obligation to disclose
evidence that is material to punishment in this matter. In other words, the result was
favorable to Jones. As Jones has not been adversely affected or prejudiced by the order
from which he appeals, he is not an aggrieved party. Accordingly, he lacks standing to
invoke this court’s jurisdiction, and the appeal must be dismissed.
{¶9} Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction.
Having fully disposed of this case, the State’s motion to strike the notice of appeal and
motion for emergency stay are overruled as moot.
MATT LYNCH, P.J.,
EUGENE A. LUCCI, J.,
concur.
PAGE 3 OF 4
Case No. 2026-A-0019
JUDGMENT ENTRY
For the reasons stated in the memorandum opinion of this court, it is ordered that
the appeal is hereby dismissed, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction. All pending motions
are overruled as moot.
Costs to be taxed against Appellant.
The Clerk of Courts is hereby instructed to serve a copy of this entry to the following:
1. Appellant, Ashtabula County Jail, 25 W. Jefferson St. Jefferson,
Ohio 44047;
2. Trial counsel, Attorney Donald J. Malarcik, 121 S. Main St., Suite
520, Akron, OH 44308 and The Ashtabula County Public
Defender’s Office, 22 East Jefferson St., Jefferson, OH 44047;
3. The Ashtabula County Prosecutor’s Office, 25 W. Jefferson St.,
Jefferson, Ohio 44047;
4. Special Prosecutors, Attys. Kara Keating, Daniel Kasaris, and Erik
Spitzer, E. Broad Street, 23rd Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215; and
5. Judge David A. Schroeder, Chambers.
JUDGE ROBERT J. PATTON
PRESIDING JUDGE MATT LYNCH,
concurs
JUDGE EUGENE A. LUCCI,
concurs
THIS DOCUMENT CONSTITUTES A FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY
A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate
pursuant to Rule 27 of the Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure.
PAGE 4 OF 4
Case No. 2026-A-0019