{¶ 1} Anthony D. Johnson appeals the trial court' s judgment convicting him of several drug-related offenses and sentencing him to twenty years in prison. He argues that: (1) the state failed to present sufficient evidence to support his convictions; (2) the trial court erred whеn it "resentenced" him; and (3) the trial court erred by imposing more than the minimum sentence and consecutive sentences. Because the trial court did not dispose of all the charges the state brought against Johnson, its judgment *2 is not a final, appealablе order. Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal, and we must dismiss it.
{¶ 2} On Mаrch 24, 2005, the Scioto County Grand Jury returned an indictment charging appellant with the following offenses: (1) trafficking in cocaine, in violation of R.C.
{¶ 3} After the рarties presented their cases, the trial court instructed the jury on all of the above offenses except the having a weapon while under a disability offense. Aрparently, the state decided not to prosecute this charge. However, thе record does not contain an entry that dismisses the charge.
{¶ 4} The jury subsequently found appellant guilty of two counts of trafficking in cocaine, two counts of possession of cocaine, and carrying a concealed weapon. The trial сourt sentenced appellant to a total of twenty years in prison. *3
{¶ 5} Johnson аppeals and raises the following assignments of error:
{¶ 6} I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT ENTERED JUDGMENT AGAINST APPELLANT WHEN THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN A CONVICTION.
{¶ 7} II. THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO SUA SPONTE RESENTENCE APPELLANT.
{¶ 8} III.THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT RESENTENCED APPELLANT TO ADDITIONAL PRISON TIME WHEN THE ORIGINAL SENTENCE WAS LAWFUL.
{¶ 9} IV. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT SENTENCED APPELLANT TO MORE THAN THE MINIMUM SENTENCE AND CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES.
{¶ 10} Before we can cоnsider Johnson' s assignments of error, we first must consider a threshold jurisdictional issue. We must raise jurisdiсtional issues involving final, appealable orders sua sponte. SeeIn re Murray (1990),
{¶ 11} CrimR. 32(C) requires а trial court' s judgment of conviction to contain (1) the plea, (2) the verdict or findings, (3) the sеntence, (4) the signature of the trial judge, and (5) the time stamp of the clerk to indicatе journalization. See State v. Branham (May 26, 1999), Summit App. No. 19342; State v. Morrison (Apr. 1, 1992), Medina App. No. 2047. Courts *4
have interpreted these requirements as imposing "a mandatory duty [on the trial court] to deal with each and every charge prosecutеd against a defendant," and "[t]he failure of a trial court to comply renders the judgment of the trial court substantively deficient under CrimR. 32[(C)]." State v. Brooks (May 16, 1991), Cuyahoga App. No. 58548, citing State v. Brown (1989),
{¶ 12} In the case at bar, the state charged Johnson with six offenses. The trial court' s judgmеnt entry only disposes of five of the charges. It did not dispose of the having a weapons while under a disability offense. Nothing else in the record indicates that the court disрosed of this charge. *5 Thus, we lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal. Accоrdingly, we dismiss Johnson' s appeal.
*6APPEAL DISMISSED.
The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out оf this Court directing the Scioto County Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution.
IF A STAY OF EXECUTION OF SENTENCE AND RELEASE UPON BAIL HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY GRANTED BY THE TRIAL COURT OR THIS COURT, it is temporarily continued for a period not to exceed sixty days upon the bail previously posted. The purpose of a continued stay is to allow Appellаnt to file with the Ohio Supreme Court an application for a stay during the pendency of proceedings in that court. If a stay is continued by this entry, it will terminate at the earliеr of the expiration of the sixty day period, or the failure of the Appellant to file a notice of appeal with the Ohio Supreme Court in the forty-five day aрpeal period pursuant to Rule II, Sec. 2 of the Rules of Practice of the Ohio Supreme Court. Additionally, if the Ohio Supreme Court dismisses the appeal prior to expiration of sixty days, the stay will terminate as of the date of such dismissal.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Exceptions.
Harsha, J. and Kline, J.: Concur in Judgment and Opinion.
For the Court,
*1BY: Matthew W. McFarland Presiding Judge