Description: Akron, Ohio criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with violation of a protective order.

Manes' ex-boyfriend secured an ex parte protection order against her in January 2023. On March 23, 2023, the parties appeared before the trial court for a full hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties and the trial court signed a domestic violence civil protection order ("DVCPO"). The DVCPO forbade Manes from contacting her ex-boyfriend, either directly or indirectly. For reasons unknown, the order was not filed until March 27, 2023.

On March 24, 2023, one day after the full hearing, Manes used Facebook Messenger to send a message to a mutual friend of hers and the ex-boyfriend. She asked the mutual friend if he "could find out" when would be a good time for her to retrieve items from the ex-boyfriend's residence. The mutual friend shared the message with the ex-boyfriend, who reported it to the police.

Manes was charged with one count of violating a protection order. A jury found her guilty, and the trial court scheduled the matter for sentencing. The court sentenced her to a fine, suspended sentence, and community control.

Manes filed a Crim.R. 29(C) motion for judgment of acquittal minutes before the clerk journalized her sentencing entry. The trial court held a hearing on her motion and later denied it. Manes then sought to appeal from the journal entry on the jury's verdict, her judgment entry of conviction, and the trial court's ruling on her Crim.R. 29(C) motion for acquittal. This Court initially dismissed her appeals because they were untimely and, as to the Crim.R. 29(C) ruling, she had not appealed from a final, appealable order. See State v. Manes, 9th Dist. Summit Nos. 30813, 30822 (Jan. 16, 2024). Following our dismissal, Manes moved to file a delayed appeal from her judgment entry of conviction and the trial court's ruling on her Crim.R. 29(C) motion for acquittal. This Court granted her motion with respect to the judgment entry of conviction. We once again noted that the Crim.R. 29(C) ruling was not a final order from which Manes could appeal. See State v. Manes, 9th Dist. Summit No. 31028 (Mar. 28, 2024).

* * *

CRIMINAL LAW. VIOLATION OF PROTECTION ORDER. The case involves an appeal concerning the sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence in a conviction for violating a protection order, despite the defendant’s argument that no valid protection order was in effect at the time of the alleged violation.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. SUFFICIENCY AND WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE. The appellant contested the trial court's denial of her motion for acquittal, arguing insufficient evidence to convict her of violating a protection order, and claimed her conviction was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.

PROCEDURAL LAW. TIMELINESS OF APPEALS. The case addresses the procedural issue of whether the appellant preserved her sufficiency argument for appeal after the dismissal of her initial appeals for untimeliness and the non-finality of the trial court's post-conviction ruling on her motion for judgment of acquittal.

Outcome: Affirmed

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: