Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common
Pleas Case No. CR-14-585521-B
Michael C. O'Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
Attorney, and Daniel T. Van, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney,
Stanton, Chief Public Defender, and Erika B. Cunliffe,
Assistant Public Defender, for appellee.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
LASTER MAYS, JUDGE
1} Plaintiff-appellant, the state of Ohio, appeals
the trial court's denial of the state's motion to
reinstate the conviction of the defendant-appellee, Michael
J. Jenkins ("Jenkins"). Upon a review of the
record, we find that the trial court's denial to
reinstate the conviction is not a final appealable order, and
accordingly, we have no jurisdiction to determine this
Facts and Procedural History
2} On May 15, 2014, Jenkins, along with his
codefendant, Oscar S. Dickerson ("Dickerson") were
indicted on five counts relating to a sexual assault that
occurred on July 2, 1994. Both were charged with two counts
of rape, two counts of complicity, and one count of
kidnapping. Jenkins was found guilty and sentenced to eight
years in prison. The state appealed the sentence, and
Dickinson filed a cross-appeal.
This court ordered his conviction vacated. State v.
Dickerson, 2016-Ohio-807, 60 N.E.3d 699 (8th Dist.)
("Dickerson I "). The Ohio Supreme Court
remanded that case for application of State v.
Jones, 148 Ohio St.3d 167, 2016-Ohio-5105, 69 N.E.3d
688. On remand, this court reached the same conclusion and
vacated Dickerson's conviction, finding that his counsel
was ineffective for failing to timely file a motion to
dismiss based on preindictment delay. State v.
Dickerson, 2017-Ohio-177 ("Dickerson II
"). The state appealed that decision, and the
Ohio Supreme Court declined to accept the case for review on
October 11, 2017.
State v. Jenkins, 2018-Ohio-483, 106 N.E.3d 216,
¶ 2 (8th Dist.) ("Jenkins I ").
3} Jenkins filed an identical appeal in Jenkins
I. This court held that "Jenkins's trial
counsel was ineffective for failing to file a timely motion
to dismiss based on preindictment delay * * *," and
reversed his convictions. Id. at ¶ 45. On
remand, the trial court held a hearing on the issue of the
preindictment delay and found that Jenkins did not suffer
prejudice due to the delay. The state then filed a motion
with the trial court to reinstate Jenkins's convictions.
The trial court denied the motion to reinstate the conviction
on July 6, 2018. The state sought leave to appeal the denial
of their motion, and this court granted leave.
Jenkins and Dickerson,  simultaneously filed appeals
on the trial court's denial of their preindictment delay
motions. Those appeals are pending before this same panel.
The state also filed an identical appeal to this one in
regards to Dickerson. The state assigns one error for our
I. The trial court erred in denying the state's motion to
reinstate convictions because such an order granted the
defendant a new trial where no error justifies a new trial
and the taint of the remand has been neutralized.
Final Appealable Order
Whether this Court has Authority to Review the Trial
Court's Decision to Deny Reinstatement of
4} The state contends that the trial court's
denial of its motion to reinstate Jenkins's ...