State v. Cousino

2015 Ohio 3587, 2015 WL 5158966

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: September 3, 2015
• Docket: 102388
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Cousino, 2015-Ohio-3587.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 102388

STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

vs.

GREGORY COUSINO DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

JUDGMENT: DISMISSED

Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-10-534129-A

BEFORE: S. Gallagher, J., E.A. Gallagher, P.J., and Blackmon, J.

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: September 3, 2015 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Thomas A. Rein 700 W. St. Clair, Suite 212 Cleveland, Ohio 44113

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Timothy J. McGinty Cuyahoga County Prosecutor By: Daniel T. Van Kristine Pesho Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys Justice Center - 8th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J.:

{¶1} Appellant Gregory Cousino appeals the decision of the trial court that

imposed a three-year prison term for the violation of community control sanctions.

Because there is a lack of a final appealable order, we lack jurisdiction over the matter

and must dismiss the appeal.

{¶2} Appellant was subject to a maximum sentence of one year in prison on each

of the four counts of criminal nonsupport of dependents for which he was convicted.

After violating the terms of community control for a third time, the trial court terminated

community control sanctions, sentenced appellant to three years in prison, without

specific reference to any count, and informed appellant of the possibility of three years of

postrelease control.

{¶3} Appellant argues, and the state concedes, that the trial court failed to make

any findings required by R.C. 2929.14 and 2011 Am.Sub.H.B. No. 86 for imposing a

consecutive sentence. The state further contends that the trial court may not impose a

lump-sum sentence and that the matter must be remanded for the trial court to sentence

appellant on each count.

{¶4} We find there is no final appealable order because the trial court’s entry was

not, in fact, a final judgment of conviction because it does not include the sentence on

each count. See State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197, 2008-Ohio-3330, 893 N.E.2d 163,

syllabus. Furthermore, the trial court imposed a lump-sum sentence without being specific as to the sentence on each of the four counts and how those counts were to run, in

violation of State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176, 2006-Ohio-1245, 846 N.E.2d 824, ¶ 9.

{¶5} Accordingly, we must dismiss the appeal for a lack of a final appealable

order.

It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed. A

certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules

of Appellate Procedure.

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, JUDGE

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, P.J., and PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, J., CONCUR