[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, a ppellant , Michael A. Woo d, 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 Ju ne 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 an d filed a motion to suppress . On February 28, 2022, the trial court held a suppression hearin g
. After considering the testimony and the evidence presented at the suppression hearing, o n March 28, 2022, the trial court issued a written decision overruling Wood’s motion to suppress
. {¶ 3} Approximately two months after ove r r uling Wood’s motion to suppress , the State reindicted Wood in Clark C.P. No. 22
- CR
- 0 488 for the purpose of charging Wood with an additional OVI count and repeat
- offender specification. The new case, C ase No. 22
- CR
- 0488 , concerned the exact same conduct for which Wood had been indicted in Case No. 21
- CR
- 0 384 , 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
- 0 384 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
- 0 488. The trial court never consolidated the cases. {¶ 4} After deliberating , t he jury found Wood guilty of three OVI counts and their
a ttendant repeat - offender specifications . The trial court merged all the offenses and specifications at sentencing and ordered Wood to serve a n aggregate term of 72 months- 3

-

in pri son. Following his conviction, Wood filed a notice of appeal in Case No. 22
- CR
0488 (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 appea ls from Case No. 21
- CR
- 0384 because he want s 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.” (Citati on 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 : “ A n 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 th e 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, t he 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 i n 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 d id not determine the criminal action against Wood. See State v. Hardy , 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 18301, 2001 WL 62511, *3 (Jan. 26, 2001). Instead, t he criminal action w as 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 p resent 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 p roceedings 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.