COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT
 
                       COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
 
                           No. 82274
 
STATE OF OHIO                :
                             :       JOURNAL ENTRY
    Plaintiff-Appellee       :
                             :           AND
    vs.                      :
                             :         OPINION
LAMONT THOMPSON              :
                             :
    Defendant-Appellant      :
                             :
                             :
DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT
OF DECISION                  :    AUGUST 21, 2003
                             :
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS     :    Criminal appeal from
                             :    Common Pleas Court
                             :    Case No. CR-406417
                             :
JUDGMENT                     :    DISMISSED.
 
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION       :
 
APPEARANCES:
 
For plaintiff-appellee:      WILLIAM D. MASON, ESQ.
                             Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
                             BY: CHRISTOPHER McMONAGLE, ESQ.
                                  Assistant County Prosecutor
                             The Justice Center, 9th Floor
                             1200 Ontario Street
                             Cleveland, Ohio 44113
 
For defendant-appellant:     THOMAS A. REIN, ESQ.
                             930 Leader Building
                             526 Superior Avenue
                             Cleveland, Ohio 44114
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                -2-
 
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J.:
 
     Appellant Lamont Thompson, appeals his conviction and the
 
sentence imposed by the common pleas court. A review of the
 
record, however, reveals appellant's arguments are untimely
 
presented and the appeal must be dismissed.
 
     Appellant was convicted and sentenced on October 22, 2001
 
under Case No. CR-406417. Appellant did not file a notice of
 
appeal until January 6, 2003, well outside the time allowed by the
 
appellate rules, nor did he file a motion for leave to file a
 
delayed appeal.
 
     "Appellant filed neither a notice of appeal from the original
 
order of sentence within the 30-day jurisdictional requirement set
 
forth in App.R. 4(A), nor a motion for a delayed appeal pursuant to
 
App.R. 5(A). Without a timely notice of appeal from the order
 
challenged, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider it. State v.
 
Slagle, Union App. No. 14-02-08, 2002 Ohio 6616; State v. Starcic
 
(June 4, 1998), Cuyahoga App. No. 72742; State v. Roark (Dec. 4,
 
1990), Adams App. No. 502, citing   In re Copley (1972), 29 Ohio
 
St.2d 35, 278 N.E.2d 358.
 
     "Since the original order of sentence was a final appealable
 
order, and appellant failed to appeal that order, this court cannot
 
consider appellant's assignments of error. Id.;    State v. Leaks
 
(Oct. 18, 2001), Cuyahoga App. No. 78801; State v. Jackson (1997),
 
123 Ohio App.3d 22, 702 N.E.2d 1229; cf., Village of Swanton v.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                -3-
 
Barker (Oct. 20, 2000), Fulton App. No. F-00-003; State v.
 
Nickerson (June 12, 1997), Cuyahoga App. No. 70910;      State v.
 
Calvert (Mar. 4, 1993), Cuyahoga App. No. 64416."         City of
 
Cleveland v. Yashea Black (Aug. 7, 2003), Cuyahoga App. No. 82457,
 
2003-Ohio-4197.
 
    Accordingly, appellant's appeal is dismissed.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                               -4-
 
     It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant costs herein
 
taxed.
 
     A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate
 
pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
 
 
 
                                   FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR.
                                         PRESIDING JUDGE
COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, J.,        AND
 
ANTHONY O. CALABRESE, JR., J., CONCUR.
 
 
 
 
N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court's decision. See
App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 22. This decision will
be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court
pursuant to App.R. 22(E) unless a motion for reconsideration with
supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days
of the announcement of the court's decision. The time period for
review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the
journalization of this court's announcement of decision by the
clerk per App.R. 22(E). See, also, S.Ct.Prac.R. II, Section
2(A)(1).
 
.