From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Cousino

Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
Sep 3, 2015
2015 Ohio 3587 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015)

Opinion

No. 102388

09-03-2015

STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE v. GREGORY COUSINO DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

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


JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 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.

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


Summaries of

State v. Cousino

Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
Sep 3, 2015
2015 Ohio 3587 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015)
Case details for

State v. Cousino

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE v. GREGORY COUSINO DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

Court:Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

Date published: Sep 3, 2015

Citations

2015 Ohio 3587 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015)