COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 67617 CITY OF BEDFORD HEIGHTS : : : PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE : JOURNAL ENTRY : v. : AND : DEWAYNE WILLIAMS : OPINION : : DEFENDANT-APPELLANT : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: JUNE 15, 1995 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal appeal from Bedford Municipal Court, No. 93-CRB-02057. JUDGMENT: DISMISSED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee: James Oakar, Esq. David J. Finnerty, Esq. 700 West St. Clair Avenue Hoyt Block Building, Suite 210 Cleveland, OH 44113 For Defendant-Appellant: Wesley A. Dumas, Sr., Esq. Wesley A. Dumas, Sr. & Associates 1711 Superior Building 815 Superior Avenue, N.E. Cleveland, OH 44114 -2- DAVID T. MATIA, J.: DeWayne Williams, defendant-appellant, appeals from his conviction in the Bedford Municipal Court for the offense of assault in violation of R.C. 2903.13. Defendant-appellant assigns one error for this court's review. I. THE FACTS On September 23, 1993 defendant-appellant assaulted Ms. Celestine Mills. Defendant-appellant struck Ms. Mills repeatedly about the head, arms and waist after she had suggested that, if defendant-appellant was going to lay on the couch, he should just go to bed. Ms. Mills, in an effort to fend off the assault, threw bleach into the face of defendant-appellant. The assault stopped as defendant-appellant tried to flush the bleach from his eyes. Approximately one-half hour later Ms. Mill left defendant- appellant's home. Defendant-appellant was arrested and charged with assault. A jury trial began on June 24, 1994. At trial, defendant-appellant maintained that Ms. Mills threw bleach into his eyes in retaliation for defendant-appellant's refusal to engage in sexual relations with her. Defendant-appellant maintained further that he did strike Ms. Mills in an effort to stop her attack with the bleach. At defendant-appellant's request, the trial court instructed the jury on the issue of self-defense. After conclusion of the charge, the jury began its deliberation and eventually returned a unanimous verdict finding defendant- appellant guilty of assault as charged. Defendant-appellant was -3- sentenced on July 5, 1994 to thirty days in the Cuyahoga County Jail and a $750 fine plus costs. Defendant-appellant filed a timely notice of appeal from the judgment of the trial court along with an appeal bond in the amount of $2,500. II. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR Defendant-appellant's sole assignment of error states: THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR BY GIVING AN INCOMPLETE JURY INSTRUCTION ON SELF-DEFENSE. A. THE ISSUE RAISED: SELF-DEFENSE Defendant-appellant argues, through his sole assignment of error, that the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury on the issue of self-defense. Specifically, defendant-appellant argues that the jury instruction given was incomplete in that it did not define aggressor or burden of proof. Before this court can consider defendant-appellant's assignment of error, it must first determine whether this court has jurisdiction over the issues raised in this appeal. B. STANDARD OF REVIEW In a criminal case, appellate jurisdiction is conferred upon the filing of a notice of appeal with the clerk of the trial court within thirty days of the date of the entry of the judgment or order appealed from. App.R. 4(B). Crim.R. 32(B) defines judgment as follows: (B) Judgment. A judgment of conviction shall set forth the plea, the verdict or findings, and the sentence. If the defendant is found not guilty or for any other reason is entitled to be discharged, the court shall -4- render judgment accordingly. The judge shall sign the judgment and the clerk shall enter it on the journal. A judgment is only effective only when entered on the journal by the clerk. Ohio courts have held that in order for a criminal journal entry to qualify as a final appealable order it must contain the following: 1. the case caption and number; 2. a designation as a decision or judgment entry or both; 3. a clear pronouncement of the court's judgment, including the plea, the verdict or findings, sentence, and the court's rationale if the entry is combined with a decision or opinion; 4. the judge's signature; and 5. a time stamp indicating the filing of the judgment with the clerk for journalization. State v. Ginocchio (1987), 38 Ohio App.3d 105; State v. Tripodo (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 124; State v. Brown (1989), 59 Ohio App.3d 1. C. JUDGMENT ENTRY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINAL APPEALABLE ORDER In the case sub judice, a review of the judgment entry dated July 5, 1994 from which this appeal is being taken, reveals that it is not a final appealable order since it does not bear the actual signature of the trial judge. This court will not accept a rubber stamp in lieu of a judge's signature. In re Mitchell (1994), 93 Ohio App.3d 153. Crim.R. 32(B) clearly mandates that once a jury renders its decision, the trial court shall render -5- judgment accordingly, sign the judgment and enter it on the court's journal. As the judgment entry was not signed by the trial court, it is not a final appealable order and is invalid for appellate purposes. Accordingly, this case is dismissed. The parties may move to reinstate this action within thirty days of obtaining a final appealable order. Appeal dismissed. -6- This appeal is dismissed. It is, therefore, considered that said appellee recover of appellant its costs herein taxed. It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to the Bedford Municipal Court directing said court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. PATTON, C.J. and KARPINSKI, J., CONCUR. DAVID T. MATIA JUDGE N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announcement of decision (see Rule 26). Ten (10) days from the date hereof this document will be stamped to indicate .