[Cite as State v. Smith , 2011-Ohio-1659.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT HIGHLAND COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : Case No. 10CA13

vs. : NICHOLAS A. SMITH, : DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
Defendant-Appellant. :

________________________________________________________________ APPEARANCES: COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT: Jacob D. Wagoner, 212 North High Street, Hillsboro, Ohio 45133 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: James B. Grande y, Highland County Prosecuting Attorney, 112 Governor Foraker Place, Hillsboro, Ohio 45133

_________________________________________________________________ CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM COMMON PLEAS COURT DATE JOURNALIZED: 3-23-11 ABELE, J. {¶ 1} This is an appeal from a Highland C ounty Common Pleas Court judgment of conviction and sentence. The tr ial court found Nicholas A. Smit h, defendant below and appellee herein, guilty of unlawful sexual contact w ith a minor, in violation of R.C. 2907.04, and sentenced him to serve three years in prison. Appe llant's counsel has advise d this court that he has reviewed the record and can discern no merito rious claim to appeal. Pursuant to Anders v.HIGHLAND, 10CA13 2 California (1967), 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, 1 counsel thus requests to withdraw from the case. Appellant’s counsel has suggested, however, that an appeal may arguably exist on the basis that appellant receive d ineffective assistance of counsel. However, our review of the record reveals that we lack a final, appealable orde r and we therefore do not reach an Anders review. Instead, we must dismiss this appeal.
I. FACTS {¶ 2} On May 4, 2010, the Highland County Grand Ju ry returned an indictment that charged appellant with sexual battery, in violation of R.C. 2907.03(A)(5). On July 23, 2010, the appellee filed a bill of informati on, in the same case, that charge d appellant with unlawful sexual contact with a minor in violation of R.C. 2907.04( A). On July 23, 2010, appellant pled guilty to unlawful sexual contact with a minor. On Sept ember 8, 2010, the trial cour t sentenced appellant to serve three years in prison. This appeal followed. II. FINAL, APPEALABLE ORDER IN CRIMINAL CASES {¶ 3} A court of appeals has no jurisdiction over orders that are not final and appealable. Section 3(B)(2), Article IV, Ohio Constitution (“Courts of appeals shall have such jurisdiction as may be provided by law to review and affirm, m odify, or reverse judgments or

1 In Anders , the United States Supreme Court held that if counsel determines, after a thorough and conscientious examination of the record, that the case is wholly frivolous, counsel should so advise the court and request permission to withdraw. Id. At 744. Furthermore, counsel must accompany the request with a brief that identifies anything in the record that could arguably support the appeal. Id. Counsel must al so provide appellant with a copy of the brief and allow him sufficient time to raise any matters that he so chooses. Id. Once these requirem ents have been satisfied, the appellate court must fully examine the trial court proceedings to determin e if meritorious issues exist. Id. If the appellate court determines that the appeal is frivolous, it may grant counsel’s request to withdraw and dismiss the appeal without violating constitutional requirements. Id. If, ho wever, the court finds the existence of meritorious issues, it must afford the appellant assistance of counsel before deciding the merits of the case. Id.HIGHLAND, 10CA13 3 final orders of the courts of record inferior to the court of appeals within the district * * * ”); see, also, R.C. 2953.02. We are required to sua sponte ra ise jurisdictional issues when they become apparent. See, e.g., In re B.J.G. , Adams App. No. 10CA894, 2010-Ohio-5195, at ¶6. {¶ 4} In order for a judgment of conviction to qua lify as a final appeal able order, a trial court must comply with Crim.R. 32(C), which states: “A judgment of conviction shall set forth the plea, the verdict or findings, and the sentence. If the defendant is found not guilty or for any other reason is entitled to be disc harged, the court shall render j udgment 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.” The Oh io Supreme Court has interpreted this rule to mean that a “judgment of convi ction is a final appealable or der under R.C. 2505.02 when it sets forth (1) the guilty plea, the jury verdict, or th e finding of the court upon which the conviction is based; (2) the sentence; (3) the signature of the j udge; and (4) entry on the journal by the clerk of court.” State v. Baker , 119 Ohio St.3d 197, 2008-Ohio-3330, 893 N.E.2d 163, syllabus; see, also, State ex rel. DeWine v. Burge , — Ohio St.3d —, — N.E.2d —, 2011-Ohio-235, at ¶8. {¶ 5} Ohio courts have furthe r interpreted these requirements as imposing “‘a mandatory duty [on the trial court] to deal with each and every charge prosecuted against a defendant,’” and have stated that “‘[t]he failure of a trial court to comply renders the judgment of the trial court substantively deficient under Crim.R. 32[(C)].’” State v. Geisler , Athens App. No. 07CA35, 2008-Ohio-4836, at ¶13, quoting State v. Brooks (May 16, 1991), Cuyahoga App. No. 58548, citing State v. Brown (1989), 59 Ohio App.3d 1, 2, 569 N.E.2d 1068; see, also, In re
B.J.G. , supra; State v. Fox , Highland App. No. 04CA15, 2005-Ohio -792. Therefore, if a trial court fails to issue an entry that disposes of each prosecuted charge, the court’s orde r constitutesHIGHLAND, 10CA13 4 an interlocutory order that is not subj ect to appellate review. See Geisler ; State v. Lupardus , Washington App. No. 07CA46, 2008-Ohio-2660; State v. Johnson , Scioto App. No. 06CA3066, 2007-Ohio-1003; State v. Fox , Highland App. No. 04CA15, 2005-Ohio-792; see, also, Cleveland v. Duckworth (Jan. 24, 2002), Cuyahoga App. No. 79658 (statin g that trial court must dispose of all charges in order for judgment to be final, appealable order). {¶ 6} In the case at bar, the appellee instituted this case by filing an indictment that charged appellant with sexual battery, in violation of R.C. 2907.03(A)(5). The appellee later filed a bill of information that charged appellant with unlawful sexual contact with a minor, in violation of R.C. 2907.04(A). The bill of informa tion appears in the same case as the sexual battery indictment and a ppellant subsequently en tered a guilty plea to the bill of information. However, it does not appear that th e court disposed of the sexual battery charge set forth in the indictment. Thus, that indictment remains pending and deprives us of jurisdiction to hear this appeal. See, e.g., State v. Kuhn Montgomery App. No. 20912, 2005- Ohio-6836, (the defendant pled to bill of information after the prosecution nolled the indictment). Accordingly, based upon the foregoing reasons, we hereby dismiss this appeal.
APPEAL DISMISSED.

JUDGMENT ENTRY It is ordered that the appeal be dismissed and that appellee recove r of appellant costs herein taxed. The Court finds there were reas onable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Highland CountyHIGHLAND, 10CA13 5 Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute that mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Harsha, P.J. & McFarland, J.: C oncur in Judgment & Opinion For the Court

BY: Peter B. Abele, Judge

NOTICE TO COUNSEL Pursuant to Local Rule No. 14, this documen t constitutes a final j udgment entry and the time period for further appeal commences from the date of filing with the clerk.