[Cite as State v. Wood, 2023-Ohio-2789.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

CLARK COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO

 Appellee

v. 

MICHAEL A. WOOD

 Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

C.A. No. 2022-CA-57

Trial Court Case No. 21CR0384

(Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas 

Court)

. . . . . . . . . . .

O P I N I O N

Rendered on August 11, 2023

. . . . . . . . . . . 

KEVIN J. MILLER, Attorney for Appellee

 

BLAISE KATTER, Attorney for Appellant

 . . . . . . . . . . . . .

WELBAUM, P.J.

{¶ 1} Due to procedural irregularities that occurred at the trial court level, appellant,

Michael A. Wood, is appealing from a judgment of the Clark County Court of Common 

Pleas that overruled his motion to suppress in Clark C.P. No. 21-CR-0384. For the 

following reasons, Wood’s appeal will be dismissed for lack of a final, appealable order.
-2-

Facts and Course of Proceedings

{¶ 2} On June 22, 2021, a Clark County grand jury returned an indictment in Case 

No. 21-CR-0384 that charged Wood with four, third-degree-felony counts of operating a 

vehicle under the influence of alcohol (OVI) and accompanying repeat-offender 

specifications. Wood pled not guilty to the charges and specifications and filed a motion 

to suppress. On February 28, 2022, the trial court held a suppression hearing. After 

considering the testimony and the evidence presented at the suppression hearing, on 

March 28, 2022, the trial court issued a written decision overruling Wood’s motion to 

suppress.

{¶ 3} Approximately two months after overruling Wood’s motion to suppress, the 

State reindicted Wood in Clark C.P. No. 22-CR-0488 for the purpose of charging Wood 

with an additional OVI count and repeat-offender specification. The new case, Case No. 

22-CR-0488, concerned the exact same conduct for which Wood had been indicted in 

Case No. 21-CR-0384, as it included the same four original counts and specifications. 

The only difference was that Case No. 22-CR-0488 added a fifth OVI count. Both cases 

remained active and were treated interchangeably by the parties until the State made an 

oral motion to dismiss Case No. 21-CR-0384 on the last day of Wood’s jury trial. The 

trial court granted the motion to dismiss, and the matter thereafter proceeded solely under 

Case No. 22-CR-0488. The trial court never consolidated the cases.

{¶ 4} After deliberating, the jury found Wood guilty of three OVI counts and their

attendant repeat-offender specifications. The trial court merged all the offenses and 

specifications at sentencing and ordered Wood to serve an aggregate term of 72 months 
-3-

in prison. Following his conviction, Wood filed a notice of appeal in Case No. 22-CR0488 (the case under which he was convicted). Wood also filed a notice of appeal in 

Case No. 21-CR-0384 (the dismissed case under which he was initially indicted). Wood 

appeals from Case No. 21-CR-0384 because he wants to challenge aspects of the trial 

court’s judgment overruling his motion to suppress, which was rendered solely under 

Case No. 21-CR-0384.

Lack of Final Appealable Order

{¶ 5} An appellate court has jurisdiction to review only final orders or judgments of 

the lower courts in its district. Section 3(B)(2), Article IV, Ohio Constitution; R.C. 

2505.02. We have no jurisdiction to review an order or judgment that is not final, and an 

appeal therefrom must be dismissed. Gen. Acc. Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 44 Ohio 

St.3d 17, 20, 540 N.E.2d 266 (1989).

{¶ 6} “In order to be final, an order must comply with the requirements of both R.C. 

2505.02 and Civ.R. 54(B), if applicable.” (Citation omitted.) In re Guardianship of Igah, 

2d Dist. Montgomery No. 26416, 2015-Ohio-4511, ¶ 19. “R.C. 2505.02 defines a final 

order for purposes of appeal.” State ex rel. Downs v. Panioto, 107 Ohio St.3d 347, 2006-

Ohio-8, 839 N.E.2d 911, ¶ 18. As pertinent here, R.C. 2505.02(B)(1) provides that: “An 

order is a final order that may be reviewed, affirmed, modified, or reversed, with or without 

retrial, when it is one of the following: (1) An order that affects a substantial right in an 

action that in effect determines the action and prevents a judgment[.]”

{¶ 7} “An entry concluding or resolving a case is generally considered a final order 
-4-

under R.C. 2505.02(B)(1), as it is an ‘order that affects a substantial right in an action that 

in effect determines the action and prevents a judgment.’ ” State v. Slack, 2d Dist. 

Montgomery No. 28921, 2021-Ohio-974, ¶ 3. Therefore, “[i]n an appeal from a criminal 

case, the final order is usually the sentencing entry journalized at the conclusion of the 

case.” Id. In addition, “[i]n criminal cases, the Supreme Court of Ohio has tied finality 

under R.C. 2505.02 to the requirements of Crim.R. 32(C)[.]” Id. Specifically, the 

Supreme Court has stated that:

Crim.R. 32(C) lists the requirements for a valid final judgment in a 

criminal case. It provides that a judgment must set forth the fact of the 

conviction, the sentence, the judge’s signature, and the time stamp 

indicating that the clerk entered the judgment in the journal. We have said 

that such a judgment “is a final order subject to appeal under R.C. 2505.02.” 

State v. Gilbert, 143 Ohio St.3d 150, 2014-Ohio-4562, 35 N.E.3d 493, ¶ 8, quoting State 

v. Lester, 130 Ohio St.3d 303, 2011-Ohio-5204, 958 N.E.2d 142, ¶ 1. (Other citation 

omitted.) 

{¶ 8} The trial court’s judgment overruling Wood’s motion to suppress in Case No. 

21-CR-0384 is not a final judgment or final order because it did not determine the criminal 

action against Wood. See State v. Hardy, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 18301, 2001 WL 

62511, *3 (Jan. 26, 2001). Instead, the criminal action was determined under Case No. 

22-CR-0488. By the time Wood’s criminal action was determined, Case No. 21-CR-0384

had already been dismissed at the State’s request. Accordingly, Case No. 21-CR-0384

does not present a final, appealable order that this court has jurisdiction to review.
-5-

{¶ 9} We note that on July 19, 2023, this court issued an order for the record of

Case No. 22-CR-0488 to be supplemented with the record of Case No. 21-CR-0384 so 

that the suppression proceedings would be available to review in Case No. 22-CR-0488. 

The clerk filed an amended notice of filing the transcript on July 20, 2023, reflecting that 

the record in that case has been supplemented. Therefore, Wood’s suppression 

arguments will be addressed under Case No. 22-CR-0488.

Conclusion

{¶ 10} For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is dismissed for lack of a final,

appealable order.

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

TUCKER, J. and EPLEY, J., concur.