Lakewood v. Dietz

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[Cite as Lakewood v. Dietz, 2002-Ohio-4424.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 80621 CITY OF LAKEWOOD : : Plaintiff-appellee : : vs. : : CARL E. DIETZ : : Defendant-appellant : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION JOURNAL ENTRY and OPINION : AUGUST 29, 2002 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : : : Criminal appeal from Lakewood Municipal Court Case No. 01C 3019 JUDGMENT : DISMISSED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellee: THOMAS J. WAGNER Chief Prosecutor City of Lakewood 12650 Detroit Avenue Lakewood, Ohio 44107 For defendant-appellant: ROBERT L. TOBIK Cuyahoga County Public Defender DARIN THOMPSON, Assistant 1200 West Third Street, N.W. 100 Lakeside Place Cleveland, Ohio 44ll3-7583 [Cite as Lakewood v. Dietz, 2002-Ohio-4424.] KENNETH A. ROCCO, P.J.: {¶1} driving Appellant Carl E. Dietz appeals from his conviction for under the influence of alcohol in violation of R.C. 4511.19. Dietz was charged with driving while under the influence of alcohol and operating a vehicle with a suspended license in violation of section 335.07(E) of the Lakewood Codified Ordinances. The case proceeded to a jury trial, after which the jury found Dietz guilty of both charges. on both charges. The court orally pronounced sentence However, the record includes a judgment only as to the charge of driving while under the influence of alcohol. {¶2} shall set Crim.R. 32(C) provides that [a] judgment of conviction sentence. forth We the have plea, the previously verdict held or that findings, the and provisions the of Criminal Rule 32(B) [now Crim.R. 32(C)] impose on a trial court a mandatory duty to set forth the verdict or its findings as to each and every charge prosecuted against an accused, and failure to do so renders the judgment substantively deficient under the rule. In [the] absence of a signed journal entry reflecting the court s ruling as to interlocutory. each charge, the order of the trial court is State v. Brown (1989), 59 Ohio App.3d 1, 2; also see Cleveland v. Duckworth (Jan. 24, 2002), Cuyahoga App. No. 79658; State v. Collins (Oct. 18, 2001), Cuyahoga App. No. 79064. 3 {¶3} The record does not demonstrate that the trial court disposed of all the charges against appellant. Therefore, it has not issued a final appealable order. Appeal dismissed. This cause is dismissed. It is, therefore, considered that said appellee recover of said appellant its costs herein. It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. PRESIDING JUDGE KENNETH A. ROCCO FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J. and JAMES J. SWEENEY, J., CONCUR

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.