[Cite as State v. Torrey, 2010-Ohio-6460.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

ROSS COUNTY 

STATE OF OHIO, : Case No. 10CA3165 

 : 

Plaintiff-Appellee, : 

: DECISION AND 

v. : JUDGMENT ENTRY

 : 

TIMOTHY M. TORREY, : 

 : Released 12/28/10 

 Defendant-Appellant. : 

______________________________________________________________________ 

APPEARANCES: 

Timothy Young, OHIO PUBLIC DEFENDER, and Jessica S. McDonald, ASSISTANT 

OHIO PUBLIC DEFENDER, Chillicothe, Ohio, for appellant. 

Toni L. Eddy, Chillicothe Law Director, and Michele R. Rout, Chillicothe Assistant Law 

Director, Chillicothe, Ohio, for appellee. 

______________________________________________________________________ 

Harsha, J. 

{¶1} Timothy Torrey appeals his conviction for one count of operating a vehicle 

with marihuana metabolite in his urine. Torrey contends that the trial court erred when it 

denied his motion to suppress his urine specimen and that the State violated his 

constitutional right to a speedy trial. However, because the trial court’s sentencing entry 

does not contain the guilty plea, the jury verdict, or the finding of the court upon which 

the conviction was based, it does not constitute a final, appealable order. Thus, we lack 

jurisdiction to consider this appeal and must dismiss it.

I. Facts

{¶2} Trooper Mizer of the Ohio State Highway Patrol initially issued Torrey a 

citation charging him with (1) operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol, a drug 
Ross App. No. 10CA3165 2 

of abuse, or a combination of them, in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a); and (2) failure 

to yield the right of way at a stop sign, in violation of R.C. 4511.43(A). Later, Mizer 

issued Torrey an additional citation, based on the same incident, charging him with 

operating a vehicle with marihuana metabolite in his urine, in violation of R.C. 

4511.19(A)(1)(j)(viii)(II). The State subsequently dismissed the original two charges and 

the court sentenced Torrey on the marihuana metabolite charge. This appeal followed. 

II. Assignments of Error 

{¶3} Torrey assigns the following errors for our review:

I. THE COURT BELOW ERRED IN RULING THAT THE STATE OF 

OHIO COMPLIED WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 

REGULATIONS, SPECIFICALLY O.A.C. 371-53-05(F), IN THE 

HANDLING OF THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT’S URINE. 

II. THE COURT BELOW ERRED IN RULING THAT THE 

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO A 

SPEEDY TRIAL WERE NOT VIOLATED BY PROSECUTORIAL 

DELAY. 

III. No Final, Appealable Order 

{¶4} Before we address the merits of the appeal, we must decide whether we 

have jurisdiction to do so. Appellate courts “have such jurisdiction as may be provided 

by law to review and affirm, modify, or reverse judgments or final orders of the courts of 

record inferior to the court of appeals within the district[.]” Section 3(B)(2), Article IV, 

Ohio Constitution; see, also, R.C. 2505.03(A); R.C. 2953.02. If a court’s order is not 

final and appealable, we have no jurisdiction to review the matter and must dismiss the 

appeal. Eddie v. Saunders, Gallia App. No. 07CA7, 2008-Ohio-4755, at ¶11. If the 

parties do not raise the jurisdictional issue, we must raise it sua sponte. Sexton v. 

Conley (Aug. 7, 2000), Scioto App. No. 99CA2655, 2000 WL 1137463, at *2. 
Ross App. No. 10CA3165 3 

{¶5} “[I]n order to decide whether an order issued by a trial court in a criminal 

proceeding is a reviewable final order, appellate courts should apply the definitions of 

‘final order’ contained in R.C. 2505.02.” State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197, 2008-Ohio3330, 893 N.E.2d 163, at ¶6, quoting State v. Muncie, 91 Ohio St.3d 440, 444, 2001-

Ohio-93, 746 N.E.2d 1092. Under R.C. 2505.02(B)(1), an order is a final order if it 

“affects a substantial right in an action that in effect determines the action and prevents 

a judgment[.]” “Undoubtedly, a judgment of conviction qualifies as an order that ‘affects 

a substantial right’ and ‘determines the action and prevents a judgment’ in favor of the 

defendant.” Baker at ¶9. 

{¶6} “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) 

entry on the journal by the clerk of court.” Baker at syllabus, explaining Crim.R. 32(C). 

However, allowing multiple documents to create a final appealable order is generally 

improper, and all required information must be present in a single document. Id. at ¶17. 

Cf. State v. Ketterer, 126 Ohio St.3d 448, 2010-Ohio-3831, 935 N.E.2d 9, at ¶17 

(holding that “[c]apital cases, in which an R.C. 2929.03(F) sentencing opinion is 

necessary, are clear exceptions to Baker’s ‘one document’ rule”). Thus, we cannot 

simply review the record to determine the factual basis for Torrey’s conviction for 

operating a vehicle with marihuana metabolite in his urine.1

{¶7} Here, the court’s sentencing entry does not contain “the guilty plea, the 

 

1

 Although we have reviewed the entire record and located a change of plea journal entry that indicates 

Torrey pleaded “no contest,” the Supreme Court of Ohio’s pronouncement of the one document rule in 

Baker, supra precludes our consideration of that entry in determining whether a final appealable order 

exists. 
Ross App. No. 10CA3165 4 

jury verdict, or the finding of the court upon which the conviction is based.” The court 

simply stated that Torrey had “been found guilty on the * * * charge.” The court made 

no reference to the basis for his conviction. Thus, the court’s entry is not a final, 

appealable order. 

{¶8} Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of a final, appealable order. 

However, we note that Torrey “has an adequate remedy at law by way of a motion in 

the trial court requesting a revised sentencing entry.” Dunn v. Smith, 119 Ohio St.3d 

364, 2008-Ohio-4565, 894 N.E.2d 312, at ¶8.2

APPEAL DISMISSED. 

 

2

 Upon the trial court’s journalization of a final appealable order, the appellant may submit this appeal for 

our immediate review upon the existing briefs and record by indicating so in the new notice of appeal. 
Ross App. No. 10CA3165 5 

JUDGMENT ENTRY

It is ordered that the APPEAL BE DISMISSED and that Appellant shall pay the 

costs. 

The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the 

Chillicothe Municipal Court to carry this judgment into execution. 

Any stay previously granted by this Court is hereby terminated as of the date of 

this entry. 

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of 

the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Exceptions. 

McFarland, P.J. & Abele, J.: Concur in Judgment and Opinion. 

For the Court 

BY: ________________________ 

 William H. Harsha, Judge 

NOTICE TO COUNSEL 

Pursuant to Local Rule No. 14, this document constitutes a final judgment 

entry and the time period for further appeal commences from the date of filing 

with the clerk.