Background
Dustin Harvey was convicted in 2013 of four counts of rape and seven counts of gross sexual imposition involving a minor child. He received an aggregate prison sentence of 15 years to life and was designated a Tier III sex offender. The Fifth District affirmed his convictions, and Harvey later filed multiple unsuccessful post-conviction motions.
In April 2026, Harvey moved to seal the filings, facts, findings, and judgment associated with a separate motion seeking reversal of his convictions. The trial court denied the motion to seal on May 4, 2026. Harvey timely appealed and identified that denial as the judgment under review, but his assignments of error alleged prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of trial counsel arising from his 2013 trial.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District dismissed the appeal. Under Ohio Appellate Rule 3(D), a notice of appeal must designate the judgment or order being appealed, and an appellate court may review only assignments of error relating to that designated judgment.
Harvey’s notice of appeal and docketing statement identified the May 4, 2026 order denying his motion to seal. Because his appellate arguments instead attacked his underlying convictions and did not address the denial of sealing, those arguments were not properly before the court. The panel concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over the issues Harvey presented.
Key Takeaways
- An appellant’s assignments of error must relate to the judgment designated in the notice of appeal.
- Identifying a post-conviction sealing order does not permit appellate review of alleged errors from the original criminal trial.
- An appeal may be dismissed when the appellant presents no assignment of error or supporting argument concerning the order actually appealed.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that a notice of appeal defines the scope of appellate review. Even a timely appeal cannot place unrelated rulings before the court merely by raising them in the appellate brief.
For practitioners, the opinion highlights the need to identify the correct appealable order and tailor every assignment of error to that order. A mismatch between the designated judgment and the issues briefed can result in dismissal without consideration of the merits.