State v. Perrill

2026-Ohio-218 · Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fourth Appellate District · January 16, 2026 · No. 24CA18 & 24CA19

Summary

The Ohio Fourth District Court of Appeals dismissed Marinda Perrill’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the trial court’s judgment did not resolve all five counts in the indictment. The court determined that the unresolved fourth count of trafficking in cocaine prevented the judgment from being a final appealable order.

Court
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fourth Appellate District
Writing for the Court
Kristy S. Wilkin; Abele, J.; Hess, J.
Jurisdiction
Ohio Court of Appeals, Fourth Appellate District
Decision date
January 16, 2026
Docket number
24CA18 & 24CA19
Procedural posture
Defendant appealed her convictions and sentence, challenging the denial of her motion to suppress and the trial court's venue determination. The court of appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the judgment entry did not resolve all counts in the indictment.
Standard of review
The court independently determined whether it had appellate jurisdiction over a final appealable order.
Precedential value
Published opinion; binding within the Fourth Appellate District subject to higher-court authority.
Parties
Marinda Perrill v. State of Ohio
Disposition
dismissed

Topics

final judgment ruleappellate jurisdictionappellate procedurecriminal procedure

Practice areas

appellate procedurecriminal procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the court of appeals had jurisdiction to review the appeal when the trial court's judgment resolved only four of the five counts in the indictment.
  2. Whether an unresolved or hanging charge prevents a criminal conviction from being a final appealable order.

Holdings

  1. A criminal judgment of conviction is not a final appealable order when a count of the indictment remains unresolved; because count 4 remained pending, the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction.

Key quotations

A failure to properly terminate these so-called “ ‘hanging charge[s]’ prevents the conviction from being a final order under R.C. 2505.02(B) because it does not determine the action, i.e., resolve the case. (¶ 26)
Because Perrill’s no contest plea is not a final appealable order, we dismiss her appeal for lack of jurisdiction. (¶ 28)

Factual background

The State reindicted Perrill on five cocaine-related counts after dismissing the original case without prejudice. Perrill pleaded no contest to counts 1, 2, 3, and 5, and the trial court convicted and sentenced her on those counts. The trial court's judgment did not address count 4, and the record contained no indication that count 4 had been dismissed or otherwise resolved.

Procedural history

The State initially charged Perrill with five criminal counts. After the original case was dismissed without prejudice, the State reindicted her on the same five counts. Perrill pleaded no contest to four counts, and the trial court entered convictions and sentence on those four counts, but the record did not show that the remaining trafficking count had been dismissed, nolle prossed, or otherwise resolved. The court of appeals therefore dismissed the appeal as taken from a nonfinal order.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Ohio Court Of Appeals Fourth Appellate District Court Of Appeals Of Ohio Fourth Appellate District