[Cite as State v. Remy, 2024-Ohio-2119.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

VINTON COUNTY

State of Ohio, : Case No. 23CA705

 

Plaintiff-Appellee, : DECISION AND

JUDGMENT ENTRY

v. :

Jeffery Lee Remy, : RELEASED 5/30/2024

Defendant-Appellant. :

______________________________________________________________________

APPEARANCES:

Kathleen Evans, Office of the Ohio Public Defender, Assistant State Public Defender, 

Columbus, Ohio, for appellant.

William L. Archer, Jr., Vinton County Prosecuting Attorney, McArthur, Ohio, for appellee.

______________________________________________________________________

Hess, J.

{¶1} Jeffery Lee Remy appeals from a judgment entry of conviction and sentence 

of the Vinton County Common Pleas Court convicting him, following no contest pleas, of

two counts of aggravated possession of drugs, one count of tampering with drugs, and 

two counts of possession of drugs. Remy presents one assignment of error asserting 

that the trial court erred when it failed to suppress evidence found during an illegal search 

incident to arrest based on a revoked arrest warrant. However, the judgment entry from 

which Remy appeals does not include a sentence for the two counts of possession of 

drugs, so it is not a final appealable order. Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to consider this

appeal and dismiss it.
Vinton App. No. 23CA705 2

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

{¶2} In September 2021, Remy was indicted on five counts: (1) Count One, 

aggravated possession of drugs, a third-degree felony; (2) Count Two, tampering with 

drugs, a third-degree felony; (3) Count Three, aggravated possession of drugs, a fifthdegree felony; (4) Count Four, possession of drugs, a first-degree misdemeanor; and (5) 

Count Five, possession of drugs, a fifth-degree misdemeanor. Remy initially pleaded not 

guilty. He filed a motion to suppress, which the trial court overruled. 

{¶3} On March 22, 2023, the trial court conducted a change of plea and 

sentencing hearing. Remy changed his plea to no contest on all counts, and the trial court 

accepted the no contest pleas and found him guilty as charged. Regarding sentencing, 

the trial court stated:

With respect to Count 1, the Court will order the defendant to serve 36 

months in prison. However, that entire amount will be stayed. 

With respect to Count 2, * * * a sentence of 36 months in prison. 

However, that term will be stayed. 

With respect to Count 3, * * * a term of 12 months in prison. That 

term will be stayed. That will be for a total stated prison term of 84 months. 

Additionally, with respect to Count 4, * * * 180 days in jail. 

And with respect to Count 5, * * * 180 days in jail. 

Uh, however, with respect to any sentence which were to be handed 

down, um, in the way of a prison term for the defendant, those would be 

required by statute to run concurrently with the total stated prison term of 

84 months anyway. 

Additionally, the Court will place the defendant on a term of 

community control for a period of three years under the standard terms and 

conditions, including that he complete drug treatment and that he pay the 

costs of this action.

* * *
Vinton App. No. 23CA705 3

The essence of what that means, Mr. Remy, is that you’re being 

placed on a term of community control. If you were to violate any of the 

conditions of that community control, you will be brought back before the 

Court. The Court could impose additional sanctions, including a longer time 

as the State has recommended. Uh, additionally, the Court could sanction 

you to 84 months in prison as I’ve already explained to you.

* * *

{¶4} On April 19, 2023, the court issued a judgment entry of conviction and 

sentence. The entry indicates that the court accepted Remy’s no contest pleas and 

entered a judgment of conviction finding him guilty on all counts. The entry states that 

“[f]or reasons stated on the record the Court finds that community control sanctions are 

consistent with the purposes of Ohio Revised Code § 2929.11.” The entry then states 

that “[i]t is therefore ORDERED that, with respect to Count One * * *, Defendant is 

sentenced to three years of community control, with respect to Count Two * * *, Defendant 

is sentenced to three years of community control, and with respect to Count Three * * *,

Defendant is sentence[d] to three years of community control, for a total term of 

community control of three years.” The entry sets forth conditions of community control 

and states: 

The Court hereby notifies Defendant that if the conditions of the 

community control sanctions herein imposed are violated, the Court may 

impose a longer time under the same sanction, may impose a more 

restrictive sanction, or may impose a prison term of 36 months on Count 

One, a prison term of 36 months on Count Two, and a prison term of twelve 

months on Count Three. Additionally said prison terms may be ordered to 

run consecutive to one another, for a total stated prison term of 84 months.

With respect to Count Four * * *, the Court may impose a jail sentence 

of 180 days; however, pursuant to statute that jail sentence would run 

concurrent to any prison sentence ordered under Count One, Count Two, 

and/or Count Three. With [r]espect to Count Five * * *, the Court may 

impose a jail sentence of 180 days; however, pursuant to statute that jail 

sentence would run concurrent to any prison sentence ordered under Count 

One, Count Two, and/or Count Three.
Vinton App. No. 23CA705 4

* * *

Remy appealed from this entry. 

II. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

{¶5} Remy presents one assignment of error: “The trial court erred when it failed 

to suppress evidence found during an illegal search incident to arrest based on a revoked 

arrest warrant.”

III. LAW AND ANALYSIS

{¶6} Before we address the merits of the appeal, we must determine 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 * * *.” Ohio Constitution, Article 

IV, Section 3(B)(2). “If a court’s order is not final and appealable, we have no jurisdiction 

to review the matter and must dismiss the appeal.” Clifton v. Johnson, 4th Dist. Pickaway 

No. 14CA22, 2015-Ohio-4246, ¶ 8. “In the event that the parties do not raise the 

jurisdictional issue, we must raise it sua sponte.” Id. Our review of the record revealed 

a jurisdictional issue, and we ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs regarding it.

{¶7} “The General Assembly enacted R.C. 2505.02 to specify which orders are 

final.” State v. Cutright, 4th Dist. Ross No. 20CA3718, 2021-Ohio-1582, ¶ 6, citing Smith 

v. Chen, 142 Ohio St.3d 411, 2015-Ohio-1480, 31 N.E.3d 633, ¶ 8. R.C. 2505.02(B)(1) 

states that “[a]n order is a final order that may be reviewed, affirmed, modified, or 

reversed, with or without retrial, when it is * * * [a]n order that 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 
Vinton App. No. 23CA705 5

‘determines the action and prevents a judgment’ in favor of the defendant.” State v. 

Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197, 2008-Ohio-3330, 893 N.E.2d 163, ¶ 9, modified in part on 

other grounds by State v. Lester, 130 Ohio St.3d 303, 2011-Ohio-5204, 958 N.E.2d 142, 

paragraph one of the syllabus. 

{¶8} “Crim.R. 32(C) outlines the elements that a final, appealable judgment of 

conviction must contain.” State v. McKinney, 4th Dist. Lawrence No. 22CA7, 2023-Ohio1587, ¶ 9, citing State v. Jackson, 149 Ohio St.3d 55, 2016-Ohio-5488, 73 N.E.3d 414, ¶ 

47. Crim.R. 32(C) states:

A judgment of conviction shall set forth the fact of conviction and the 

sentence. Multiple judgments of conviction may be addressed in one 

judgment entry. If the defendant is found not guilty or for any other reason 

is entitled to be discharged, the court shall render judgment accordingly. 

The judge shall sign the judgment and the clerk shall enter it on the journal. 

A judgment is effective only when entered on the journal by the clerk.

Thus, “[a] judgment of conviction is a final order subject to appeal under R.C. 2505.02 

when it sets forth (1) the fact of the conviction, (2) the sentence, (3) the judge’s signature, 

and (4) the time stamp indicating the entry upon the journal by the clerk.” Lester at 

paragraph one of the syllabus. “As a general matter, ‘[o]nly one document can constitute 

a final appealable order,’ meaning that a single entry must satisfy the requirements of 

Crim.R. 32(C).” Jackson at ¶ 48, quoting Baker at ¶ 17. Moreover, “all counts of an 

indictment must be resolved before a judgment entry of conviction may become a final, 

appealable order.” State v. Craig, 159 Ohio St.3d 398, 2020-Ohio-455, 151 N.E.3d 574, 

¶ 15.

{¶9} The judgment entry of conviction and sentence in this case does not fully 

resolve all counts of the indictment. In the entry, the trial court sentenced Remy to three 

years of community control on Counts One, Two, and Three. However, the entry contains 
Vinton App. No. 23CA705 6

no sentence for Counts Four or Five. Instead, the trial court notified Remy that if he 

violated the conditions of community control, which again, the entry imposed only on 

Counts One, Two, and Three, the court may impose a jail sentence of 180 days on Counts 

Four and Five.

{¶10} In his supplemental brief, Remy concedes the entry “fails to explicitly 

impose a sentence” for Counts Four and Five. However, he asserts that “reviewing the 

sentencing hearing as a whole, the trial court understood its sentence to suspend the jail 

term imposed” on those counts “and place Mr. Remy on community control for those 

counts as well.” He asserts that the omission of an explicit sentence for those counts in 

the entry is a clerical error which the trial court has authority to correct via nunc pro tunc 

entry “with leave from this court.” Therefore, he asks us to stay this appeal and remand 

this matter to the trial court for the limited purpose of issuing a nunc pro tunc entry 

correcting the judgment entry of conviction and sentence. 

{¶11} However, “ ‘ “[i]t is axiomatic that a court speaks only through its journal 

entries.” ’ ” State v. Richards, 4th Dist. Washington No. 20CA12, 2021-Ohio-389, ¶ 12, 

quoting State v. Payton, 4th Dist. Scioto No. 14CA3628, 2015-Ohio-1796, ¶ 7, quoting 

State ex rel. Collier v. Farley, 4th Dist. Lawrence No. 05CA4, 2005-Ohio-4204, ¶ 18. 

Because the judgment entry of conviction and sentence does not include a sentence for 

Counts Four and Five, those counts remain unresolved, and the entry is not a final 

appealable order. Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to consider the appeal and to remand 

this matter to the trial court. See In re C.K., 2d Dist. Clark No. 2015-CA-68, 2016-Ohio1418, ¶ 8-12 (because there was not a final appealable order, appellate court lacked 

jurisdiction over appeal and to remand to juvenile court to issue a nunc pro tunc entry). 
Vinton App. No. 23CA705 7

“The appeal must be dismissed, and a new final judgment entered.” Id. at ¶ 11. 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. 

APPEAL DISMISSED.
Vinton App. No. 23CA705 8

JUDGMENT ENTRY

It is ordered that the APPEAL IS 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 Vinton

County Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution.

IF A STAY OF EXECUTION OF SENTENCE AND RELEASE UPON BAIL HAS 

BEEN PREVIOUSLY GRANTED BY THE TRIAL COURT OR THIS COURT, it is 

temporarily continued for a period not to exceed 60 days upon the bail previously posted. 

The purpose of a continued stay is to allow appellant to file with the Supreme Court of 

Ohio an application for a stay during the pendency of proceedings in that court. If a stay 

is continued by this entry, it will terminate at the earlier of the expiration of the 60-day 

period, or the failure of the appellant to file a notice of appeal with the Supreme Court of 

Ohio in the 45-day appeal period pursuant to Rule II, Sec. 2 of the Rules of Practice of 

the Supreme Court of Ohio. Additionally, if the Supreme Court of Ohio dismisses the 

appeal prior to expiration of 60 days, the stay will terminate as of the date of such 

dismissal.

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

the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

Abele, J. & Wilkin, J.: Concur in Judgment and Opinion.

For the Court

BY: ________________________

 Michael D. Hess, 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.