State v. Nave

2018 Ohio 485

Opinion

Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION Nos. 105286 and 105288

STATE OF OHIO

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

vs.

CHRISTOPHER L. NAVE

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

JUDGMENT:

DISMISSED

Criminal Appeal from the

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case Nos. CR-15-600628-C and CR-15-601090-B

BEFORE: E.A. Gallagher, A.J., S. Gallagher, J., and Laster Mays, J.

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: February 8, 2018

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Patricia J. Smith 206 S. Meridian Street, Suite A Ravenna, Ohio 44266

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Michael C. O’Malley Cuyahoga County Prosecutor BY: Anna Woods Assistant Prosecuting Attorney The Justice Center, 9th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, A.J.:

{¶1} In this consolidated appeal, defendant-appellant Christopher Nave challenges the imposition of consecutive sentences following his guilty pleas to multiple counts of burglary and theft in Case No. CR-15-601090-B and counts of burglary, theft and receiving stolen property in Case No. CR-15-600628-C. We dismiss these consolidated appeals due to a lack of final appealable orders in both cases.

{¶2} In CR-15-601090 the record reflects that the trial court, at the sentencing hearing, failed to impose individual sentences for each of appellant’s six counts of fifth-degree felony theft. The trial court’s imposition of a lump-sum sentence on those counts without imposing a specific sentence on each count violates State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176, 2006-Ohio-1245, 846 N.E.2d 824, ¶ 9. Because individual sentences were not imposed at the sentencing hearing, a nunc pro tunc entry cannot remedy this omission. We find there is no final appealable order because the trial court’s entry was not a final judgment of conviction because it lacks a sentence for each count. State v. Cousino, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.102388, 2015-Ohio-3587, ¶ 4, citing State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197, 2008-Ohio-3330, 893 N.E.2d 163, syllabus.

{¶3} In CR-15-600628, the trial court’s original sentencing entry of May 10, 2016, failed to set forth the individual sentences imposed on each of appellant’s three offenses although the trial court did properly impose individual sentences at the sentencing hearing. The trial court’s nunc pro tunc entry of December 14, 2017, does not constitute a final appealable order because it does not conform to State v. Lester, 130 Ohio St.3d 303, 2011-Ohio-5204, 958 N.E.2d 142 and Baker.

{¶4} Therefore, both appeals are dismissed for lack of final appealable orders.

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

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

_____________________________________________________

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., and ANITA LASTER MAYS, J., CONCUR