Court of Appeals of Ohio, Twelfth District, Warren
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT Case No.
P. Fornshell, Warren County Prosecuting Attorney, for
& Martin, LLC, Mary K. Martin, for defendant-appellant
1} Defendant-appellant, Andrey Beyduk, appeals a
decision of the Warren County Court denying his motion for a
2} Appellant, a Russian citizen and United States
legal permanent resident, was convicted of domestic violence
in 2006 following a bench trial. Ten years later, upon
applying to become a United States citizen, appellant was
informed by the United States Department of Homeland Security
that he would be deported due to his domestic violence
conviction. Consequently, in April 2017, appellant filed a
motion for leave to file a motion for a new trial
("motion for leave") pursuant to Crim.R. 33.
Appellant argued that multiple prejudicial errors occurred at
trial, to wit, (1) the trial court did not advise him of his
right to have an interpreter and failed to provide him with
an interpreter; (2) the trial court allowed appellant's
wife, the alleged victim, to be an interpreter; (3) the trial
court allowed appellant to waive his right to counsel without
warning him that a conviction could have adverse immigration
consequences; and (4) the state's case was based upon
3} A hearing on the motion for leave was held on May
23, 2017. During the hearing, the state informed the trial
court that appellant's motion involved a two-step
process, requiring the trial court to first determine whether
to grant the motion for leave before a motion for a new trial
could be filed. Upon inquiry from the trial court, defense
counsel advised the court that the motion for a new trial
would be based upon the same grounds and documentation as
those of the motion for leave. The trial court then stated,
Then I'm going to grant the initial motion for leave to
file for the new trial and I will take under advisement the
motion for new trial, based on the documents that have been
filed by both [defense counsel] and the State.
4} Subsequently, defense counsel orally moved for a
new trial. The trial court then stated that the matter would
be taken under advisement. The trial court did not journalize
an entry reflecting that the motion for leave was granted.
However, later that day, the trial court issued a judgment
entry that simply stated, "Motion Overruled."
5} On June 12, 2017, appellant filed a motion and
supporting memorandum, asking the trial court "to issue
findings of fact and conclusions of law for its decision of
May 23, 2017 to overrule his motion for leave to file
application for a new trial." On August 11, 2017, the
trial court issued an "Order and Entry" comprised
of three separate sections. As applicable to this appeal, the
introductory section of the entry explained that "this
matter came before the Court upon Defendant's Motion for
Leave, " "Defendant's Motion is based on [the
following] four issues, " "This Court held a
hearing on this matter on May 23, 2017, " and
"After the hearing, this Court reviewed all motions,
responses, transcript and law presented. This Court
overruled the motion for leave to file a motion for new
trial. Defendant filed a request for findings of fact and
conclusions of law." (Emphasis added.) Under the
Proceedings heading, the trial court described in detail what
happened at trial. Finally, under the Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law heading, the trial court addressed and
rejected each of the four issues raised by appellant before
concluding, "Therefore, this Court overrules
6} Appellant now appeals, raising one assignment of
7} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING APPELLANT'S
REQUEST FOR A NEW TRIAL.
8} Appellant argues the trial court erred in denying
his motion for a new trial. For the reasons that follow, we
find that this court has no jurisdiction to review the merits
of this appeal.
9} A trial court's judgment entry denying a
motion for leave to file a motion for a new trial is a final
appealable order. See State v. Morris, 2d Dist.
Montgomery Nos. 26949 and 26960, 2017-Ohio-1196; State v.
Collins, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 01AP-394, 2001 Ohio
App. LEXIS 4920 (Nov. 6, 2001); and State v. Brooks,
8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 75522, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 3596 (Aug.
5, 1999). Likewise, a trial court's denial of a motion
for a new trial is a final appealable order. See State v.
Moore,188 Ohio App.3d 726, 2010-Ohio-1848 (4th Dist.);
State v. Workman, 12th Dist. Butler No.
CA2002-12-302, 2003-Ohio-4242; and Brooks (finding
that because trial courts have no duty to ...