State v. Hamlett, 191 Ohio App. 3d 397

Hamlett was convicted of violating a domestic-violence protection order (CPO) and of aggravated menacing after a bench trial.
The CPO arose from a July 29, 2009 consent agreement in the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, prohibiting Hamlett from abusing or threatening S.H. and from contact or proximity.
The CPO was signed July 29, 2009 but journalized by the clerk on August 5, 2009.
On August 1, 2009, S.H. reported Hamlett outside her window threatening violence; officer-based evidence relied on the CPO and testimony, but the ex parte CPO presented to the officer was not admitted.
The State argued the CPO was effective on July 29 or, at minimum, via an ex parte order; Hamlett argued the lack of journalization before August 1 made the CPO ineffective.
The appellate court held the CPO was not effective until journalization on August 5, 2009, vacated the CPO conviction, but affirmed the aggravated-menacing conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the CPO was effective on August 1, 2009	State: CPO effective July 29; journalization not required for effect.	Hamlett: CPO effective only after journalization (August 5).	CPO not effective until August 5; conviction vacated.
Whether the aggravated-menacing conviction is supported by the weight of the evidence	State: credible threats shown by S.H. and surrounding conduct.	Hamlett: testimony too vague and inconsistent to prove serious physical harm.	Conviction not against the manifest weight of the evidence; affirmed.

Thompkins v. State, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio Supreme Court 1997) (sufficiency standard: rational trier of fact could find elements beyond reasonable doubt)
Villa v. Elmore, 160 Ohio St. 109 (Ohio Supreme Court 1953) (journalization requirement; court speaks through its journal, not oral pronouncement)
Schenley v. Kauth, 160 Ohio St. 109 (Ohio Supreme Court 1953) (court speaks through the journal; Civ.R. 58 relevance)