[Cite as State v. Krug, 2024-Ohio-2603.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAKE COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 2024-L-040 Plaintiff-Appellee, Civil Appeal from the - vs - Court of Common Pleas JON P. KRUG, Trial Court No. 2008 CR 000008 Defendant-Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION Decided: July 8, 2024 Judgment: Appeal dismissed

Charles E. Coulson, Lake County Prosecutor, and Teri R. Daniel, Assistant Prosecutor, Lake County Administration Building, 105 Main Street, P.O. Box 490, Painesville, OH 44077 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).

Jon P. Krug, pro se, PID# A544-929, Richland Correctional Institution, 1001 Olivesburg Road, P.O. Box 8107, Mansfield, OH 44901 (Defendant-Appellant).

MARY JANE TRAPP, J.

{¶1} On June 11, 2024, appellant, Jon P. Krug, filed a pro se notice of appeal from the trial court’s May 7, 2024 judgment entry treating appellant’s pro se motions as petitions for postconviction relief and denying them as untimely without a hearing.

{¶2} App.R. 4(A)(1) states that “a party who wishes to appeal from an order that is final upon its entry shall file the notice of appeal required by App.R. 3 within 30 days of that entry.” {¶3} Furthermore, postconviction proceedings are considered civil in nature.

State v. Nichols, 11 Ohio St.3d 40, 40-42 (1984); see also State v. Jones, 2021-Ohio- 1696, ¶ 6 (11th Dist.).

{¶4} App.R. 4(A)(3) states, in relevant part: {¶5} “In a civil case, if the clerk has not completed service of notice of the judgment within the three-day period prescribed in Civ.R. 58(B), the 30-day periods referenced in App.R. 4(A)(1) and 4(A)(2) begin to run on the date when the clerk actually completes service.”

{¶6} Here, there is a notation on the docket reflecting the clerk mailed a copy of the May 7, 2024 entry to appellant on May 8, 2024, which is within the three-day period prescribed in Civ.R. 58(B). Therefore, a timely notice of appeal from the May 7, 2024 entry was due no later than June 6, 2024, which was not a holiday or weekend. The appeal is untimely by five days. The time requirement is jurisdictional in nature and may not be enlarged by an appellate court. State ex rel. Pendell v. Adams Cty. Bd. of Elections, 40 Ohio St.3d 58, 60 (1988); see also App.R. 14(B).

{¶7} Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed, sua sponte, as untimely.

MATT LYNCH, J., ROBERT J. PATTON, J., concur.

Case No. 2024-L-040