State v. Lusane

2019 Ohio 3549

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: September 3, 2019
• Docket: 2019-P-0027
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Lusane, 2019-Ohio-3549.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

PORTAGE COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO, : OPINION

Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. 2019-P-0027 - vs - :

MATTHEW M. LUSANE, :

Defendant-Appellant. :

Criminal Appeal from the Portage County Municipal Court, Ravenna Division, Case No. 2015 TRC 1134 R.

Judgment: Reversed and remanded.

Victor V. Vigluicci, Portage County Prosecutor, and Pamela A. Holder, Assistant Prosecutor, 241 South Chestnut Street, Ravenna, Ohio 44266 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).

Matthew Lusane, A660-925, Trumbull Correctional Institution, 5701 Burnett Road, P.O. Box 640, Leavittsburg, Ohio 44430 (Defendant-Appellant).

THOMAS R. WRIGHT, P.J.

{¶1} Appellant, Matthew M. Lusane, appeals the denial of his motion to revise

his sentencing judgment. As asserted, the trial court has not issued a single judgment

setting forth both the fact of conviction and sentence.

{¶2} The trial court noted on the case file jacket that appellant plead guilty to

operating a vehicle while intoxicated. That notation is time-stamped but not signed and

does not find appellant guilty. Separately, in a judgment entry, the trial court imposed a thirty-day jail term, suspended appellant’s driver’s license for two years, and fined him

$550 and court costs. That judgment does not find appellant guilty.

{¶3} Appellant appeals the denial of his motion to issue a single judgment setting

forth the fact of conviction and sentence:

{¶4} “The trial court abused its discretion by denying defendant-appellant’s

motion to revise the 2005 sentencing journal entry where it fails to comply with Crim.R.

32(C).”

{¶5} Appellant is entitled to, but did not receive, a single entry setting forth the

fact of conviction and sentence. Crim.R. 32(C); State v. Lester, 130 Ohio St.3d 303,

2011-Ohio-5204, 958 N.E.2d 142, paragraph one of the syllabus. Failure to grant his

motion constitutes reversible error. State ex rel. Daniels v. Russo, 156 Ohio St.3d 143,

2018-Ohio-5194, 123 N.E.3d 1011.

{¶6} Accordingly, the trial court’s judgment is reversed and remanded.

CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J.,

MARY JANE TRAPP, J.

concur.