DocketNumber: No. 2007 CA 00349.
Citation Numbers: 2008 Ohio 5885
Judges: EDWARDS, J.<page_number>Page 2</page_number>
Filed Date: 11/10/2008
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/6/2016
{¶ 3} On November 29, 2007, the matter proceeded to jury trial. After the presentation of evidence, the jury found appellant guilty of one count of telecommunications harassment but was unable to reach a decision on the charge of aggravated menacing. The State indicated that it did not intend to retry the appellant on the aggravated menacing charge. Appellant was sentenced to serve a forty (40) day jail sentence and pay a two hundred and fifty dollar ($250.00) fine. Appellant was credited thirty days for jail time served. Appellant's remaining sentence and fine were suspended on the condition that appellant obtain an evaluation at Trillium Family Services and follow any recommendations.
{¶ 4} On December 11, 2007, the judgment of conviction and sentence was journalized. In the entry, the trial court stated:
{¶ 5} "On the charge of Aggravated Menacing, the jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict. The State has indicated no intention to retry this matter on this charge." *Page 3
{¶ 6} It is from this conviction and sentence that appellant now seeks to appeal setting forth the following assignments of error:
{¶ 7} "II. THOMAS L. ROBINSON WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL IN VIOLATION OF THE
{¶ 8} "II. THOMAS L. ROBINSON WAS DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, IN VIOLATION OF THE
{¶ 9} Prior to entertaining appellant's assignments of error, we must first sua sponte consider, whether appellant's appeal has been taken from a final appealable order. See State ex rel. White v. CuyahogaMetro. Hous. Auth. (1997),
{¶ 10} "Appellate courts have jurisdiction to review the final orders or judgments of lower courts within their appellate districts." Section
{¶ 11} In a criminal matter, if a trial court fails to dispose of all the criminal charges, the order appealed from is not a final, appealable order. State v. Coffman, Delaware App. No. 06CAA090062,
{¶ 12} In the case sub judice, appellant was charged with telecommunication harassment and aggravated menacing stemming from the same series of events. The record reflects that the jury was unable to reach a verdict on the charge of aggravated menacing, and the State indicated that it did not intend to retry the appellant on the charge. However, the record does not reflect that the charge was dismissed by journal entry. It is axiomatic in Ohio that a court speaks only through its journal. State ex rel. Worcester v. Donnellon (1990),
{¶ 13} Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider appellant's assignment of error. This appeal is dismissed for lack of a final, appealable order.
*Page 6Edwards, J. Wise, P.J. and Delaney, J., concur.