City of Strongsville v. Feliciano ( 2011 )

[Cite as Strongsville v. Feliciano, 194 Ohio App.3d 476, 2011-Ohio-3266.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 96294
CITY OF STRONGSVILLE,
APPELLEE,
v.
FELICIANO,
APPELLANT.
JUDGMENT:
DISMISSED
Criminal Appeal from the
Berea Municipal Court
Case No. 10 CRB 00688
2
BEFORE: Rocco, J., Blackmon, P.J., and E. Gallagher, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: June 30, 2011
George F. Lonjak, Strongsville City Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Tiaon Michele Lynch, for appellant.
KENNETH A. ROCCO, Judge.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Alnardo Feliciano, was charged in Berea
Municipal Court with domestic violence in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A) and
eventually entered a plea of guilty to a charge of disorderly conduct. After
the trial court imposed sentence, Feliciano paid his fine but filed a notice of
appeal and requested the trial court to stay execution of the remainder of his
sentence.
{¶ 2} Feliciano now seeks to appeal from his conviction; however, this
court cannot consider this case and must dismiss this appeal because the trial
court did not enter a final order.
{¶ 3} “A judgment of conviction is a final appealable order under R.C.
2505.02 when it sets forth (1) the guilty plea, the jury verdict, or the finding
of the court upon which the conviction is based; (2) the sentence; (3) the
signature of the judge; and (4) [the time stamp showing journalization] by the
3
clerk of court.” (Emphasis added.) State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197,
2008-Ohio-3330, 893 N.E.2d 163, syllabus, explaining Crim. R. 32(C).
{¶ 4} A trial judge’s handwritten notations made on a case file are
insufficient to serve as a judgment entry unless those notations have been
time-stamped by the court’s clerk. State v. Charlton, Summit App. No.
24035, 2008-Ohio-3771; Cuyahoga Falls v. Foster, Summit App. No. 21820,
2004-Ohio-2662, ¶ 5, citing State ex rel. White v. Junkin (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d
335, 337, 686 N.E.2d 267.
{¶ 5} The record submitted in this case demonstrates that the Berea
municipal court’s clerk has time-stamped some of the court’s docket entries.
The “journal entry” from which Feliciano has attempted to appeal, however,
is simply a part of a preprinted file folder. The entire file folder contains
many handwritten notes, apparently added at different times during the
proceedings.
{¶ 6} Handwritten marks on the case file folder indicate that Feliciano
was found guilty of “Dis. Conduct (M4)” and received a sentence for that
conviction, but the “journal entry” does not bear a time-stamp showing
journalization by the clerk of court. Moreover, although Feliciano submitted
with his notice of appeal a “copy” of the judgment entry, it, too, bears neither
4
the judge’s signature nor the court clerk’s time-stamp. Therefore, the
judgment does not comply with Baker requirements.
Appeal dismissed.
BLACKMON, P.J., and E. GALLAGHER, concur.