[Cite as State v. Kuntz , 2023

- Ohio

- 669.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

ROSS COUNTY

State of Ohio

, :

: Plaintiff

- Appell ee
, : Case No. 2 1 CA 3759

:

v. :

: DECISION AND

Chad Kuntz

, : JUDGMENT ENTRY

: Defendant

- Appell ant

. :

_____________________________________________________________ APPEARANCES:

Timothy Young , Ohio Public Defender, and Peter Galyardt, Assistant Ohio Public Defender, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant.

Jeffrey C. Marks, Ross County Prosecuting Attorney, and Pamela C. Wells, Ross County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Chillicothe , Ohio, for Appellee.

_____________________________________________________________

Smith, P.J.

{¶1} Appellant, Chad Kuntz, appeals the judgment of the Ross County

Court of Common Pleas convicting him of murder, a special felony in violation of

R.C. 2903.02 ; felonious assault, a second

- degree felony in violation of R.C.

2903.11 ; and reckless homicide, a third

- degree felony in violation of R.C.

2903.041. The record reflects that Kuntz was originally indicted on two felony

counts and then was subsequently indicted under the same case number on four

additional and different felony counts

. He was tried before a jury on only the fourRoss App. No. 2 1 CA 3759 2

counts co ntained in the second indictment and was ultimately convicted of three of

the counts, with the other count being dismissed. On appeal, Kuntz raises three

assignments of error contending that 1) he received constitutionally ineffective

assistance of counse l; 2) his felony murder conviction and felonious assault finding

of guilt are not supported by sufficient evidence and the trial court erred when it

denied his Crim.R. 29 motion as to those charges; 3) his felony murder conviction

and felonious assault fin ding of guilt are not supported by the manifest weight of

the evidence; and 4) his felony murder conviction is unconstitutional. However,

because the trial court failed to dispose of the two counts contained in the first

indictment, n o final appealable or der exists. As a result, we lack jurisdiction to

address the merits of Kuntz’s argument s and instead we must dismiss the appeal

for lack of jurisdiction.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

{¶2} On May 7, 2021, a secret indictment was filed charging Kuntz with

two felony counts as follows:

Count One: Involuntary Manslaughter , in violation of

R.C. 2903.04 , a felony of the first degree ( alleging that he caused the death of another by comm itting or attempting to commit felonious assault) ;

Count Two: Involuntary Manslaughter , in violation of

R.C. 2903.04 , a felony of the first degree ( alleging that he caused the death of anotherRoss App. No. 2 1 CA 3759 3

by committing or attempting to commit

ag gravated assault).

Kuntz was arrested on those charges, arraigned, appointed counsel, and bond was

set at $500,000.00 cash, surety, or real estate. Subsequently , on June 4, 2021, a

second indictment was filed under the same case number charging Kuntz wit h four

additional felony counts as follows:

Count One : Murder, a special felony in violation of R.C.

2903.02 ;

Count Two : Felonious assault , in violation of R.C.

2903.11 , a felony of the second degree (alleging that he caused the death of an other by committing or attempting to commit criminal damaging or endangering) ;

Count Three : Involuntary manslaugh t er , in violation of

R.C. 290 3.04 , a felony of the third degree;

Count Four: Reckless homicide , in violation of R.C.

290 3.041 , a felony of the third degree

.

{¶3} Kuntz was again arraigned and pled not guilty to the charge s , the same

counsel was appointed

, and his bond was continued. A bill of particulars was later

filed which only addressed the four counts contained in the second indictment.

Thereafter, the matter proceeded to a jury trial on September 28, 2021

. T he

following exchange took place on the record after the jury was seat ed:

THE COURT: Alright. Well, that takes care of that. Do you

wish to

– inform the court that you intend to

dismiss the initial indictments of the

– that would be the two counts of involuntaryRoss App. No. 2 1 CA 3759 4

manslaughter in the indictment filed May 7 of 2021. Is that still your intent, Mr. Marks?

MR. MARKS: It is, your Honor. We will move at this time

to indict

– or to move to dismiss those, first degree felony, involuntary m anslaughter

from that date.

THE COURT: Mr. Carter, I assume

–

MR. CARTER: No objection.

THE COURT: The court will dismiss the two, first degree

felony counts of involuntary manslaughter contained in the initial indictment filed May 7, 2021. So, this matter will proceed on the

– supersede the indictm ent that was filed June

4 of 2021. * * *

However, despite orally dismissing those two counts of involuntary manslaughter

contained in the first indictment, it does not appear that the trial court issued a

written entry formally dismissing the two cou nts

.

{¶4} The matter thereafter proceeded to trial on only the four counts

contained in the second indictment. At the close of the State’s case, defense

counsel moved the court to acquit Kuntz on all charges pursuant to Crim.R. 29

.

The motion was denied except as to the third

- degree involuntary manslaughter

count. Kuntz was ultimately convicted of murder, felonious assault

, and reckless

homicide as charged in the second indictment. The trial court issued a judgment

entry on October 4, 2021, which dismissed the third

- degree involuntary

manslaughter count contained in the second indictment, but which did not addressRoss App. No. 2 1 CA 3759 5

the oral dismissal of the two first

- degree involuntary manslaughter counts

contained in the first indictment. The trial court thereafter issued a judgment entry

of sentence on October 20, 202 1 , and it is from that judgment that Kuntz now

appeals, setting forth fou r assignments of error for our review.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

I. CHAD KUNTZ RECEIVED CONSTITUTIONALLY

INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.

II. CHAD KUNTZ’S FELONY MURDER CONVICTION

AND FELONIOUS ASSAULT FINDING OF GUILT

ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT

EVI DENCE, AND THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN

IT DENIED HIS CRIM.R. 29 MOTION AS TO THOSE

CHARGES.

III. CHAD KUNTZ’S FELONY MURDER CONVICTION

AND FELONIOUS ASSAULT FINDING OF GUILT

ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE MANIFEST

WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.

IV. CHAD KUNTZ’S FELONY MURDER CONVICTION

IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

{¶5} Before we review the merits of this appeal we must initially 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

* * *.’ ” State v. Stevens , 4th Dist. Lawrence Nos. 21CA15, 21CA16, 2022

- Ohio

-Ross App. No. 2 1 CA 3759 6

2518, ¶ 8, quoting Ohio Cons titution, Article IV, Section 3(B)(2). See also State v.

Cunningham , 4th Dist. Athens No. 22CA1, 2022

- Ohio

- 4814 , ¶ 4. “ ‘If a court's

order is not final and appealable, we have no jurisdiction to review the matter and

must dismiss the appeal.’ ” Stevens at ¶ 8, quoting Clifton v. Johnson , 4th Dist.

Pickaway No. 14CA22, 2015

- Ohio

- 4246, ¶ 8 ; Cunningham at ¶ 4

. As this Court

noted in Stevens , “ ‘[i]n the event that the parties do not raise the jurisdictional

issue, we must raise it sua sponte.’ ” Id. Here, after conducting a thorough review

of the record, we have identified a jurisdictional issue that prevents this Court from

reaching the merits of the appeal.

{¶6} “ ‘The General Assembly enacted R.C. 2505.02 to specify which

orders are final.’ ” St evens at ¶ 9, quoting State v. Cutright , 4th Dist. Ross No.

20CA3718, 2021

- Ohio

- 1582, ¶ 6, in turn citing Smith v. Chen , 142 Ohio St.3d 411,

2015

- Ohio

- 1480, 31 N.E.3d 633, ¶ 8. See also State v. Cunningham, supra , at ¶ 5.

This Court recently explained in Stevens as follows:

“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 journa l by the clerk. [”] State v.

Lester , 130 Ohio St.3d 303, 2011

- Ohio

- 5204, 958 N.E.2d 142, paragraph one of the syllabus. “The Supreme Court of Ohio has * * * held that in a criminal case involving multiple counts, a

final order need not contain a reiterati on of those counts that were resolved on the record in other ways, such as dismissal, nolled counts, or not guilty findings.” Cutright at ¶ 7, citing State ex rel. Rose v. McGinty , 128 Ohio St.3d 371, 2011

- Ohio

- 761, 944 N.E.2d 672, ¶ 3. “But unless the c harges that do not result inRoss App. No. 2 1 CA 3759 7

conviction have been terminated by a journal entry, the hanging charges prevent the conviction from being a final order under R.C. 2505.02(B) because it does not determine the action by resolving the entire case.” (Emphasis add ed) Id. , and cases cited

therein.

Stevens at ¶ 9 ; Cunningham at ¶ 5

. See also Painter and Pollis, Ohio Appellate

Practice, Section 2:10 (Oct. 2020) (“where a defendant is convicted on more than

one charge, there is no final order until the trial court e nters judgment (including

sentence) on each and every offense for which there is a conviction and a journal

entry memorializing the disposition of charges resolved through dismissal or

acquittal. Indeed, a criminal charge for which there is no recorded di sposition is a

‘hanging charge’ that ‘prevents the conviction from being a final order,’ and the

Fourth District in particular has repeatedly invoked this doctrine as the basis for

dismissing appeals in criminal cases”).

{¶7} Here, as set forth above, alt hough the State moved to dismiss the two

counts of involuntary manslaughter contained in the first indictment

, and although

the trial court orally granted the motion, the trial court failed to formally dismiss

those two counts either by separate entry or i n the judgment entry of sentence. As

such, we conclude that counts one and two contained in the May 7, 2021

indictment remain pending. Thus, the trial court's judgment entry unfortunately

does not constitute a final appealable order. Accordingly, we must dismiss the

appeal for lack of jurisdiction.Ross App. No. 2 1 CA 3759 8

APPEAL DISMISSED.

JUDGMENT ENTRY

It is ordered that the APPEAL BE DISMISSED and costs be assessed to Appellant.

The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Ross County Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution.

IF A STA Y 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 Appe llant 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

A ppellant 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 expi ration 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. and Hess, J. concur in Judgment and Opinion.

For the Court,

_____________________________ Jason P. Smith Presiding Judge

NOTICE TO COUNSELRoss App. No. 2 1 CA 3759 9

Pursuant to Local Rule No. 14, this document constitutes a final judgment entry and the time period for further appeal commences fr om the date of filing with the clerk.