State v. Craig (Slip Opinion), 151 N.E.3d 574

Background

Steven Craig was indicted on two counts of felonious assault and one count of rape arising from the same victim; a jury convicted him on the two assault counts and deadlocked on the rape count, producing a mistrial on that count.
The trial court sentenced Craig to concurrent seven-year prison terms on the two assault convictions, entered judgment, and noted the rape charge remained pending; Craig began serving his sentence.
Craig filed an appeal from his convictions; the First District dismissed for lack of a final, appealable order because the rape count remained unresolved.
While the appeal was pending, the trial court found Craig incompetent to stand trial on the unresolved rape count, ordered restoration efforts, and later adjudicated him mentally ill and retained jurisdiction, effectively halting any retrial for an extended (potentially indefinite) period.
The Ohio Supreme Court accepted discretionary review to decide whether a conviction and sentence on some counts of a multicount indictment are final and appealable when other counts remain pending after a mistrial, and whether Craig could appeal under the circumstances created by his incompetency adjudication.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a conviction and sentence on some counts of a multicount indictment is a final, appealable order when other counts remain pending after a mistrial	Craig / State: a conviction and sentence on each count is a separate final order and immediately appealable	First Dist. / majority below: R.C. 2505.02(B)(1) requires resolution of the entire action; pending counts prevent finality and appeal	Majority: Generally no — a conviction on fewer than all counts is not a final, appealable order while other counts remain pending after a mistrial
Whether Craig may nevertheless appeal because he was later adjudicated incompetent to stand trial on the remaining count (and whether his earlier notice of appeal is timely)	Craig: the incompetency adjudication prevents timely retrial, effectively severs remaining charge, so his convictions should be appealable; his earlier notice should be treated as premature and deemed filed when severance occurred	First Dist.: dismissal of appeal was proper; App.R. 4(C) does not revive a dismissed appeal; incompetency did not resolve pending charge	Court: where the state is prevented from retrying remaining counts because defendant is adjudicated incompetent, that finding operates as a de facto severance and permits appeal of the convictions; Craig’s previously filed notice of appeal is treated as a premature notice under App.R. 4(C) and deemed filed when the incompetency adjudication occurred; the First District’s dismissal is reversed and case remanded

Key Cases Cited

State v. Jackson, 87 N.E.3d 1227 (Ohio 2017) (judgment of conviction final and appealable when other counts have been resolved by dismissal)
State v. Baker, 893 N.E.2d 163 (Ohio 2008) (discusses judgment-of-conviction finality and Crim.R. 32(C) requirements)
Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 (U.S. 1985) (due-process limits when states provide appeals as of right)
United States v. Abrams, 137 F.3d 704 (2d Cir. 1998) (counts of conviction treated as effectively severed after mistrial on remaining counts; immediate appeal allowed)
United States v. King, 257 F.3d 1013 (9th Cir. 2001) (conviction and sentence on subset of counts entitle defendant to immediate appeal; due process concern if imprisoned before appeal)
State v. Saxon, 846 N.E.2d 824 (Ohio 2006) (sentencing is offense-specific; separate sentence for each offense)
State v. Danison, 823 N.E.2d 444 (Ohio 2005) (sentence is the final judgment in a criminal case)