State v. Nesbitt, 2023 Ohio 1276

Two indictments were filed under the same Ross County case number: the first (Aug 6, 2021) charged two counts of felonious assault; the second (Aug 27, 2021) charged two felonious-assault counts each with firearm specifications and one count of having weapons while under disability.
Nesbitt pleaded not guilty and was tried on the charges in the second indictment only; the parties and trial court proceeded as if the first indictment had been superseded.
The jury found Nesbitt guilty of Count One (felonious assault) and the firearm specification, not guilty of Count Two, and guilty of Count Three (having weapons while under disability).
The trial court’s judgment entries (verdict and sentence) did not expressly dispose of the two counts in the first indictment and contained an inaccurate arraignment date; the first-indictment counts therefore remained undistinguished on the journal ("hanging charges").
Because the journal did not resolve the entire case (the outstanding counts were not terminated by journal entry), the appellate court held the judgment entry was not a final, appealable order and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction without addressing the merits.

Issue	State's Argument	Nesbitt's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on negligent assault as a lesser included offense of felonious assault	Conviction/sentencing were proper (state urged affirmance)	Requested negligent-assault instruction because evidence at most showed recklessness, not knowing conduct	Not reached — appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Whether the conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence	Evidence supported guilty verdict; jury entitled to believe witnesses	Verdict was against the manifest weight; jury lost its way	Not reached — appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Whether R.C. 2967.271 (Reagan Tokes Law) is unconstitutional	Statute is constitutional; sentence lawful	Claimed R.C. 2967.271 violates Ohio Const. art. I, §5 and U.S. Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments	Not reached — appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Whether R.C. 2923.13 (weapons-under-disability) is unconstitutional insofar as it uses juvenile adjudications as predicates	Statute is constitutional; prior adjudication may support disability	Claimed R.C. 2923.13 violates Ohio Const. art. I, §5 and the Sixth Amendment when juvenile adjudications serve as predicates	Not reached — appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

Smith v. Chen, 142 Ohio St.3d 411 (2015) (describing R.C. 2505.02 framework for final orders)
State v. Lester, 130 Ohio St.3d 303 (2011) (a criminal judgment is final when it states conviction, sentence, judge’s signature, and journal stamp)
State ex rel. Rose v. McGinty, 128 Ohio St.3d 371 (2011) (noting that in multiple-count cases a final order need not reiterate counts resolved on the record, but unresolved counts must be journalized)