State v. Saunders, 2017 Ohio 901

Jerome Saunders was indicted (Sept. 16, 2014) on three felony counts: trafficking in cocaine (first degree), possession of cocaine (first degree), and tampering with evidence (third degree).
The trial court found Saunders guilty on counts two (possession) and three (tampering) and imposed agreed consecutive sentences totaling seven years.
The trial court's judgment entry did not dispose of count one (trafficking); the record before the appellate court contains no indication the State moved to dismiss that count.
Appellant's counsel filed an Anders brief and moved to withdraw, asserting no arguable, non-frivolous appellate issues; counsel identified the suppression ruling as a possible issue.
Saunders filed a pro se brief arguing the vehicle stop lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion, so the trial court erred in denying his suppression motion.
The Fourth District concluded the appeal presented no final, appealable order because count one remained pending, and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred in denying Saunders' motion to suppress	State implicitly maintained suppression denial was correct (no meritorious error identified)	Saunders (pro se) argued there was no reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop his vehicle	Not reached on merits — appellate court had no jurisdiction to decide because appeal was not from a final order
Whether the appellate court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal when one indictment count remains undecided	State proceeded on convictions for counts 2 and 3 but record shows count 1 remained pending	Saunders sought review of convictions and suppression ruling despite unresolved count	Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the trial court did not dispose of all charges, so the judgment was not a final, appealable order

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedural requirements when counsel seeks to withdraw on grounds that appeal is frivolous)
Portco, Inc. v. Eye Specialists, Inc., 173 Ohio App.3d 108, 2007-Ohio-4403 (4th Dist.) (courts of appeals may review only final orders of inferior courts)