The court lacks jurisdiction to address appellant's appeal where the trial court disposed of only one of the multiple violations of community control alleged against appellant.
Decided 2019-01-14
[Cite as State v. Payne,
2019-Ohio-80
.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
BUTLER COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, :
CASE NOS. CA2018-04-081
Appellee, : CA2018-04-082
: OPINION
- vs - 1/14/2019
:
NICHOLAS R. PAYNE, :
Appellant. :
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Case No. CR2016-07-0996
Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, John C. Heinkel, Government
Services Center, 315 High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for appellee
Michele Temmel, 6 South Second Street, Suite 305, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for appellant
PIPER, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Nicholas Payne, appeals a decision of the Butler County Court of
Common Pleas revoking his community control and imposing a prison sentence.
{¶ 2} Payne was indicted on two counts of nonsupport of dependents, to which he
pled guilty to one count and the other count was dismissed. A month later, Payne was
indicted on four additional counts of nonsupport of dependents, to which he pled guilty to two
counts and two counts were dismissed. The trial court sentenced Payne to community
Butler CA2018-04-081
CA2018-04-082
control on all charges.
{¶ 3} Payne violated the terms of his community control sanctions in February 2018
when he failed to report to his probation officer and his whereabouts were unknown. Two
months later, a second notice of alleged violations was issued, alleging that attempts to
locate and make contact with Payne had been unsuccessful and that Payne had failed to pay
support as ordered. Payne's failure to report constituted a violation of Rule 5 of his
community control sanctions, and failure to pay support constituted a violation of Rule 12.
{¶ 4} Payne later appeared for a violation hearing during which he admitted to a
single violation of his community control. However, Payne did not specify whether he was
admitting the Rule 5 violation or the Rule 12 violation. Even so, the trial court accepted
Payne's single admission. The trial court then revoked community control and sentenced
Payne accordingly. The trial court later issued an entry in which it addressed Payne's single
violation of Rule 5, but did not address the alleged violation of Rule 12 or offer a disposition
of that charge. Payne then filed the current appeal, challenging the sentence imposed and
the revocation of his community control. While Payne raises two assignments of error for our
review, we find that we lack jurisdiction to rule on Payne's arguments for lack of a final
appealable order.
{¶ 5} Where the trial court's order fails to impose sentence for each charge, that
order is merely interlocutory because the trial court has a mandatory duty "to deal with each
and every charge prosecuted against a defendant." State v. Hoelscher, 9th Dist. Medina No.
05CA0085-M,
2006-Ohio-3531, ¶ 10
. Interlocutory orders do not constitute final appealable
orders, as finality does not attach to an incomplete order. State v. Erickson, 12th Dist.
Warren No. CA2014-10-131,
2015-Ohio-2086
.
{¶ 6} A review of the record indicates that Payne admitted to one violation of
community control even though the alleged violations were specific to violations of Rule 5
-2-
Butler CA2018-04-081
CA2018-04-082
and Rule 12 of Payne's community control sanctions. Accordingly, the alleged violation of
Rule 12 is still pending before the trial court so that the trial court's revocation of community
control and imposition of sentence for the Rule 5 violation is merely interlocutory.
{¶ 7} Due to the trial court's failure to dispose of both community control violation
allegations, no final appealable order exists. Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to consider
Payne'
{¶ 8} s assignments of error and dismiss his appeal for lack of a final appealable
order.
{¶ 9} Appeal dismissed.
S. POWELL, P.J., and HENDRICKSON, J., concur.
-3-
