State v. McKenna
2017 Ohio 6986
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Peter McKenna pled guilty in municipal court to violating R.C. 1531.02 (illegal taking of more than one antlered white-tailed deer) on December 29, 2015; a magistrate journalized two separate entries that day.
- One journal entry (signed/adopted by the trial court) recorded the finding of guilt; a separate entry (not signed/adopted) set forth the sentence and forfeiture.
- About three months later ODNR sent McKenna a letter assessing $18,346.40 as restitution (R.C. 1531.201) and threatening license revocation if not paid.
- After receiving the ODNR assessment, McKenna moved to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing the assessment was an unadvised additional penalty (manifest injustice) and that he had a defense based on his hunting license.
- The trial court denied the motion; McKenna appealed the denial to the First District Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the journal entries did not, in a single signed document, contain the conviction and the sentence, so no final, appealable order had been entered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appellate court has jurisdiction to hear McKenna’s appeal from denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea | State: The trial court’s denial is reviewable | McKenna: Denial should be reviewable and plea withdrawal required because he wasn’t informed of the ODNR assessment/penalty | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction: the appealed entry is not a final, appealable order |
| Whether the magistrate’s journal entries together constitute a final judgment of conviction | State: The adopted entry and the separate sentencing entry together reflect conviction and sentence | McKenna: He challenged plea based on failure to advise of additional penalty; underlying conviction/sentence are effective | Court: Entries must be in a single document with judge’s signature and journal stamp; separate entries cannot be combined to create final order |
| Whether the ODNR assessment constituted an additional criminal penalty that had to be advised before plea | State: (not reached on merits due to jurisdictional dismissal) | McKenna: Assessment is an additional criminal penalty not advised at plea, creating manifest injustice | Not reached—court declined to rule on merits because no final appealable order existed |
| Proper classification of the motion to withdraw plea when sentencing not yet pronounced | State: (implicit) | McKenna: Treated as post‑sentence motion by trial court | Court: Motion was effectively a presentence motion; overruling a pre‑sentence motion is interlocutory and not appealable |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lester, 958 N.E.2d 142 (Ohio 2011) (sets out one-document final-judgment rule for criminal convictions)
- State v. Baker, 893 N.E.2d 163 (Ohio 2008) (requires conviction, sentence, judge’s signature, and journal stamp to appear in one document)
- State v. Chamberlain, 202 N.E.2d 695 (Ohio 1964) (order overruling pre‑sentence motion to withdraw plea is interlocutory and not appealable)
- Pollard v. United States, 352 U.S. 354 (U.S. 1957) (cited in concurrence expressing concern about appellate review limitations)