State v. Ridener, 2019 Ohio 1672

On June 7, 2017 Ridener was identified as the driver who fled the scene after his SUV struck a parked vehicle; he was cited for (1) failure to exchange identity and vehicle information (first-degree misdemeanor), (2) failure to maintain control (minor misdemeanor), and (3) driving under suspension (unclassified misdemeanor).
Ridener appeared pro se and orally waived counsel, pleading no contest to the first-degree and minor misdemeanors in exchange for dismissal of the unclassified misdemeanor. The plea colloquy briefly noted the right to counsel but did not discuss defenses or risks of proceeding uncounseled.
Ridener signed a plea form but initially placed initials next to the wrong line (satisfaction with counsel) which the court struck through; the form otherwise acknowledged the right to counsel.
The court deferred for a presentence investigation. At sentencing the court orally announced it would impose no fine or costs for the minor misdemeanor but sentenced Ridener to 180 days in jail and costs for the first-degree misdemeanor.
The written journal entry, however, recorded only the conviction and sentence on the first-degree misdemeanor and was silent as to the minor misdemeanor; no written disposition of that count appeared in the judgment entry.
The Second District sua sponte reviewed final-order jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the journal entry failed to resolve all charges against Ridener, rendering the order interlocutory.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Ridener knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived the right to counsel before pleading no contest	State: Waiver was made on the record; colloquy and signed form show awareness of the right to counsel	Ridener: Waiver was insufficient because the court did not explain possible defenses or risks of proceeding uncounseled	Court did not reach the merits because it found no final appealable order (appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction)
Whether the trial court’s journal entry is a final appealable order under R.C. 2505.02 and Lester	State: The entry showed conviction and sentence for the felony-level charge, permitting appeal	Ridener: The record shows the court orally disposed of both counts; dismissal would be improper	Held: Journal entry failed to dispose of the minor misdemeanor; because the journal does not reflect a full resolution of all convicted counts, the order is interlocutory and not appealable

Gibson v. State, 45 Ohio St.2d 366 (1976) (bench colloquy must adequately protect a defendant’s rights when waiving counsel)
State v. Lester, 130 Ohio St.3d 303 (2011) (judgment of conviction is final if it states fact of conviction, sentence, judge’s signature, and journal entry stamp)
State v. Jackson, 151 Ohio St.3d 239 (2017) (valid judgment requires full resolution of each convicted count)
State ex rel. White v. Junkin, 80 Ohio St.3d 335 (1997) (a court speaks through its journal, not oral pronouncements)
State ex rel. Davis v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 127 Ohio St.3d 29 (2010) (judgment must resolve all counts to be final)
State ex rel. Rose v. McGinty, 128 Ohio St.3d 371 (2011) (same principle: incomplete journal entries produce interlocutory orders)
State v. Engle, 183 Ohio App.3d 488 (2009) (discussing standards for accepting uncounseled pleas)