State v. BakerState v. Baker
- Reporters:
- , , ,
- Before:
- Lanzinger
Lead Opinion
{¶ 1} This case was accepted as a certified conflict between the Ninth and Twelfth District Courts of Appeals to resolve what a judgment of conviction must include pursuant to
I. Background
{¶ 2} Appellant, Jermaine Baker, was convicted after a jury trial of having weapons under disability and obstructing official business.1 The judgment of conviction, entered April 9, 2007, stated that “the Defendant was found GUILTY by a Jury Trial * * The judgment of conviction did not state that Baker had previously entered a not guilty plea at his arraignment on October 6, 2006,
{¶ 3} Baker filed his notice of appeal on May 7, 2007. The state moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of a final order because the judgment of conviction did not contain appellant’s plea, citing State v. Miller, 9th Dist. No. 06CA0046-M, 2007-Ohio-1353, 2007 WL 879666, and State v. Taylor, 9th Dist. No. 06CA008964, 2007-Ohio-2038, 2007 WL 1238602, ¶ 10. The Ninth District Court of Appeals agreed and dismissed Baker’s appeal.
{¶ 4} Pursuant to
{¶ 5} The Ninth District Court of Appeals certified a conflict to this court as follows: “Must the judgment of conviction contain the defendant’s plea, verdict or findings, and the sentence in one document to constitute a final, appealable order under
II. Analysis
{¶ 6} A court of appeals has no jurisdiction over orders that are not final and appealable. Section 3(B)(2), Article IV, Ohio Constitution (“Courts of appeals shall have such jurisdiction as may be provided by law to review and affirm, modify, or reverse judgments or final orders of the courts of record inferior to the court of appeals within the district * * * ”). See also
{¶ 8} “(1) An order that affects a substantial right in an action that in effect determines the action and prevents a judgment.”
{¶ 9} Undoubtedly, a judgment of conviction qualifies as an order that “affects a substantial right” and “determines the action and prevents a judgment” in favor of the defendant.
{¶ 10} In entering a final appealable order in a criminal case, the trial court must comply with
{¶ 11} We first observe that we are discussing a “judgment of conviction.” In State v. Tuomala, 104 Ohio St.3d 93, 2004-Ohio-6239, 818 N.E.2d 272, ¶ 14, we explored the meaning of the word “conviction”: “A ‘conviction’ is an ‘act or process of judicially finding someone guilty of a crime; the state of having been proved guilty.’ Black’s Law Dictionary (7th Ed.1999) 335. Thus, the ordinary meaning of ‘conviction,’ which refers exclusively to a finding of ‘guilt,’ is not only inconsistent with the notion that a defendant is not guilty (by reason of insanity or otherwise), it is antithetical to that notion. Indeed, the notion that a person is convicted by virtue of being found not guilty is an oxymoron (a ‘not guilty conviction’).”
{¶ 12} There are four ways that a defendant can be convicted of a criminal offense. A defendant may plead guilty either at the arraignment or after withdrawing an initial plea of not guilty or not guilty by reason of insanity. A defendant may enter a plea of no contest and be convicted upon a finding of guilt by the court. A defendant may be found guilty based upon a jury verdict. A defendant also may be found guilty by the court after a bench trial. Any one of these events leads to a sentence. A court cannot sentence a defendant who is found not guilty. See, e.g., Tuomala, 104 Ohio St.3d 93, 2004-Ohio-6239, 818 N.E.2d 272, ¶ 15 (a defendant found not guilty by reason of insanity is not sentenced but rather committed to a hospital). Furthermore, if a defendant maintains a not guilty plea throughout the litigation, the only way that this plea is overridden is through proof beyond a reasonable doubt leading to a guilty verdict during a jury trial or a finding of guilt by the court after a bench trial.
{¶ 14} A more logical interpretation of
{¶ 15} The Ninth District has faded to recognize that not all four methods of conviction have all five elements. Unlike a plea of no contest, which requires a trial court to make a finding of guilt, State v. Bird (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 582, 584, 692 N.E.2d 1013, a plea of guilty requires no finding or verdict. Kercheval v. United States (1927), 274 U.S. 220, 223, 47 S.Ct. 582, 71 L.Ed. 1009 (“A plea of guilty differs in purpose and effect from a mere admission or an extrajudicial confession; it is itself a conviction. Like a verdict of a jury it is conclusive. More is not required; the court has nothing to do but give judgment and sentence”). See also State v. Bowen (1977), 52 Ohio St.2d 27, 28, 6 O.O.3d 112, 368 N.E.2d 843.
{¶ 16} The difficulty in interpreting “the plea” as every plea entered during the case is that pleas of not guilty or not guilty by reason of insanity cannot be the foundation for a conviction, which is the focus of
{¶ 18} We now hold that a judgment of conviction is a final appealable order under
III. Conclusion
{¶ 19} By erroneously dismissing appeals of this nature, the Ninth District has unnecessarily complicated cases of those seeking appellate review of their convictions and sentences.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, and Cupp, JJ., concur. O’Donnell, J., concurs separately. Moyer, C.J., and O’Connor, J., dissent.Notes
. The jury also found Baker not guilty of the offenses of receiving stolen property and possession of crack cocaine, and the court directed a verdict for him on the offenses of possession of marijuana, possession of drugs, and disorderly conduct.
Concurrence Opinion
concurring.
{¶ 20} I concur with the judgment reached by the majority.
{¶ 21} In my view, this case is not about the placement of a comma. Rather, it is an interpretation of
{¶ 22} For this reason, I concur with the majority to reverse the court of appeals and remand this cause for further proceedings.
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting.
{¶ 23} I must respectfully dissent, because the majority states that though the Ninth District Court of Appeals’ conclusion is “supported grammatically” by the language and punctuation used in
{¶ 24} However, we have repeatedly stated that we first look to the plain language of a statute or rule and apply it as “written when its meaning is unambiguous and definite.” Portage Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. Akron, 109 Ohio St.3d 106, 2006-Ohio-954, 846 N.E.2d 478, ¶ 52, citing State ex rel. Savarese v. Buckeye Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 543, 545, 660 N.E.2d 463. Further, when we consider language used in a statute or rule, we “read[ ] words and phrases in context and constru[e] them in accordance with rules of grammar and common usage.” State ex rel. Choices for South-Western City Schools v. Anthony, 108 Ohio St.3d 1, 2005-Ohio-5362, 840 N.E.2d 582, at ¶ 40, citing State ex rel. Rose v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of Elections (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 229, 231, 736 N.E.2d 886;
{¶ 25}
{¶ 26} The language at issue in this case is the first sentence of
{¶ 27} If this court upon the recommendation of the Supreme Court Rules Advisory Committee (now the Commission on the Rules of Practice and Proce
{¶ 28} The Ninth District Court of Appeals does not try to complicate
1. the plea,
2. the verdict or findings,
3. the sentence,
4. the signature of the judge, and
5. the time stamp of the clerk to indicate journalization.
State v. Miller, 9th Dist. No. 06CA0046-M, 2007-Ohio-1353, 2007 WL 879666, at ¶ 5. The court of appeals then proceeds in Miller to review the trial court’s judgment entry to locate each of the five elements. Finding one of the elements missing, the court of appeals concludes that the entry fails to comply with
{¶ 29} The majority states that the Ninth District “require[s] additional language * * * to be added to a judgment of conviction for the order to be entertained as final and appealable” and that “[t]his requirement leads to a more serious problem, for a defendant may be caught in limbo. Unless a defendant in prison were to seek mandamus or procedendo for a trial court to prepare a new entry, appellate review of the case would be impossible.”
{¶ 30} To the contrary, the Ninth District Court of Appeals has not required that additional language be included in the judgment of conviction; the court of appeals’ decision has simply required the five elements required by this court’s rule. If the majority’s concern is that the rule creates a “more serious problem,” then we should apply the rule as adopted by this court and request the Supreme Court Commission on the Rules of Practice and Procedure in Ohio Courts to review the issue to determine whether to recommend that the rule be amended.
O’Connor, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion.