COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT
                       COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
                            NO. 77291
CITY OF BEREA                 :
                              :   JOURNAL ENTRY
     PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE       :
                              :        AND
v.                            :
                              :      OPINION
BRETT WUENSCH                 :
                              :
     DEFENDANT-APPELLANT      :
DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT
OF DECISION:                  SEPTEMBER 28, 2000
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:      Civil appeal from
                              Berea Municipal Court,
                              Nos. 99CRB-00617-1-2.
JUDGMENT:                     DISMISSED.
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION:
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee:       Gregory M. Sponseller, Esq.
                              Law Director/Chief Prosecutor
                              Barbara L. Jones, Esq.
                              Assistant Director of Law
                              Timothy J. Degeeter, Esq.
                              Assistant City Prosecutor
                              11 Berea Commons
                              Berea, OH 44017
For Defendant-Appellant:      William L. Tomson, Jr., Esq.
                              14400 Pearl Road
                              Strongsville, OH 44136
TIMOTHY E. McMONAGLE, J.:
     Defendant-appellant, Brett Wuensch, appeals the decisions of
the Berea Municipal Court finding him guilty after a bench trial of
                               -2-
trespass, in violation of R.C. 2911.21, and menacing, in violation
of R.C. 2903.22, and denying his motion for a new trial.
     This appeal  is dismissed, sua sponte,  for lack of a  final
appealable order.    Although  the file  contains  a  handwritten
notation on the case jacket indicating that appellant's motion for
a new trial was denied, the record does not contain a journal entry
signed  by the judge  and file-stamped by  the trial court  clerk
resolving appellant's motion for a  new trial.1  As noted by  the
Twelfth Appellate District Court of Appeals in State v. Ginocchio
(1987), 38 Ohio App.3d 105,  brief notations on the case file  or
jacket are  not sufficient judgment  entries to constitute  final
appealable orders.  Accordingly, this court does not have subject
matter jurisdiction to reach the merits of the case.  See State v.
Domers(1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 592, rehearing denied (1991), 62 Ohio
St.3d 1425.  See, also, State v. Brown (1989), 59 Ohio App.3d 1;
Kovach  v. Callahan  (Dec. 23,  1999), Cuyahoga  App. No.  75189,
unreported; City of  Cleveland Heights v. Jones (Jan. 26,  1995),
Cuyahoga App. No. 65990, unreported.
     Appellant may  move for reinstatement  of his appeal  within
thirty days  of obtaining  a signed,  file-stamped journal  entry
resolving his motion for a new trial.
     1The Notice of Action advising that appellant's motion for a
new  trial had  been  overruled and  provided  to this  court  by
appellant in his motion to reinstate to active status is simply a
notice from the court;  it is not a  journal entry signed by  the
judge and file-stamped by the court clerk.
                               -3-
     This appeal is dismissed.
     It is, therefore, ordered that appellee recover from appellant
its costs herein taxed.
     It is ordered  that a special mandate  be sent to the  Berea
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.
                                      TIMOTHY E. McMONAGLE
                                             JUDGE
DYKE, A.J. and
PATTON, J., CONCUR.
N.B.  This entry is an announcement of the court's decision.  See
App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 22.  This decision will
be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court
pursuant to App.R. 22(E) unless a motion for reconsideration with
supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days
of the announcement of the court's decision.  The time period for
review by the Supreme Court of  Ohio shall begin to run upon  the
journalization of  this court's announcement  of decision by  the
clerk  per App.R.  22(E).   See, also,  S.Ct.Prac.R. II,  Section
2(A)(1).
 
.