Court of Appeals of Ohio, First District, Hamilton
Appeal From: Hamilton County Municipal Curt TRIAL NOS.
C-16TRD-28152A C-16TRD-28152B C-16TRD-28152C C-16TRD-28152D.
T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Scott M.
Heenan, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for
Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, and
Demetra Stamatakos, Assistant Public Defender, for
In this appeal, defendant-appellant Shawntel Sims argues that
the trial court lacked jurisdiction to accept his no-contest
pleas without first obtaining a written waiver of his right
to a jury trial pursuant to R.C. 2945.05, and that the trial
court erred in denying his motion to suppress.
Because the trial court was not required to obtain a written
waiver of Sims's right to a jury trial before accepting
his no-contest pleas, and because it properly denied his
motion to suppress, we find Sims's arguments to be
Sims was stopped for a tinted-window violation. In addition
to being cited for that violation, he received citations for
driving under an OVI suspension, a safety-restraint
violation, and driving under a financial-responsibility-law
suspension. All citations were for "petty offenses"
under Ohio law. Crim.R. 2(D).
For a petty offense, a defendant is not automatically
entitled to a trial by jury. Rather, he must make a written
demand. Crim.R. 23(A). In this case, Sims filed a timely jury
demand with the trial court. He also filed a motion to
suppress. Following the trial court's denial of his
motion to suppress, Sims entered no-contest pleas to all
charges. The trial court accepted Sims's pleas and found
him guilty. For the offense of driving under an OVI
suspension, the trial court sentenced Sims to 180 days in
jail and imposed a $500 fine and court costs. For the offense
of driving under a financial-responsibility-law suspension,
the trial court sentenced Sims to 30 days in jail and imposed
a $10 fine and costs. For the safety-restraint and
tinted-window violations, the trial court only imposed costs.
of Final Appealable Orders
Before proceeding to the merits of Sims's arguments, we
must examine our jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. This
court only has jurisdiction to review final orders and
judgments. Ohio Constitution, Article IV, Section 3(B)(2);
A judgment of conviction is a final order under R.C. 2505.02
when it sets forth (1) the fact of the conviction, (2) the
sentence, (3) the judge's signature, and (4) the time
stamp indicating the entry upon the journal by the clerk.
State v. Lester, 130 Ohio St.3d 303, 2011-Ohio-5204,
958 N.E.2d 142, paragraph one of the syllabus; State v.
Bennett, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-140507 and C-140508,
2015-Ohio-3246, ¶ 4; Crim.R. 32(C). Each of these
requirements must be contained in a single document.
State v. Daniels, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-140242,
2014-Ohio-5160, ¶ 7, citing State v. Baker, 119
Ohio St.3d 197, 2008-Ohio-3330, 893 N.E.2d 163, ¶ 17.
In Bennett, we held that while required by law to be
imposed, court costs are not a criminal punishment and do not
constitute a sanction that can be imposed as a sentence.
Bennett at ¶ 4-5. In this case, the trial court
imposed a jail term and a fine for the offenses of driving
under an OVI suspension and driving under a
financial-responsibility-law suspension. But for the
safety-restraint and tinted-window violations, it imposed
costs only. Consequently, no sentence was imposed for these
offenses and the entries appealed from with respect to them
are not final and appealable orders. We accordingly dismiss
the appeal with respect to the safety-restraint and