State v. Cousino
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State v. Cousino, 2015-Ohio-3587.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 102388 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. GREGORY COUSINO DEFENDANT-APPELLANT JUDGMENT: DISMISSED Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-10-534129-A BEFORE: S. Gallagher, J., E.A. Gallagher, P.J., and Blackmon, J. RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: September 3, 2015 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Thomas A. Rein 700 W. St. Clair, Suite 212 Cleveland, Ohio 44113 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Timothy J. McGinty Cuyahoga County Prosecutor By: Daniel T. Van Kristine Pesho Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys Justice Center - 8th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J.: {¶1} Appellant Gregory Cousino appeals the decision of the trial court that imposed a three-year prison term for the violation of community control sanctions. Because there is a lack of a final appealable order, we lack jurisdiction over the matter and must dismiss the appeal. {¶2} Appellant was subject to a maximum sentence of one year in prison on each of the four counts of criminal nonsupport of dependents for which he was convicted. After violating the terms of community control for a third time, the trial court terminated community control sanctions, sentenced appellant to three years in prison, without specific reference to any count, and informed appellant of the possibility of three years of postrelease control. {¶3} Appellant argues, and the state concedes, that the trial court failed to make any findings required by R.C. 2929.14 and 2011 Am.Sub.H.B. No. 86 for imposing a consecutive sentence. The state further contends that the trial court may not impose a lump-sum sentence and that the matter must be remanded for the trial court to sentence appellant on each count. {¶4} We find there is no final appealable order because the trial court’s entry was not, in fact, a final judgment of conviction because it does not include the sentence on each count. See State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197, 2008-Ohio-3330, 893 N.E.2d 163, syllabus. Furthermore, the trial court imposed a lump-sum sentence without being specific as to the sentence on each of the four counts and how those counts were to run, in violation of State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176, 2006-Ohio-1245, 846 N.E.2d 824, ¶ 9. {¶5} Accordingly, we must dismiss the appeal for a lack of a final appealable order. It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. SEAN C. GALLAGHER, JUDGE EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, P.J., and PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, 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.
