COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT
                       COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
                            NO. 79658
CITY OF CLEVELAND             :
                              :
          Plaintiff-appellee  :
                              :          JOURNAL ENTRY
     vs.                      :               and
                              :             OPINION
WILLIAM D. DUCKWORTH          :
                              :
          Defendant-appellant :
                              :
DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT
OF DECISION                   :    JANUARY 24, 2002
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING       :    Criminal appeal from
                              :    Cleveland Municipal Court
                              :    Case No. 2000 TRC 104,381
JUDGMENT                      :    DISMISSED.
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION        :
APPEARANCES:
For plaintiff-appellee:       LAUREN C. MOORE
                              City of Cleveland
                              Chief Prosecuting Attorney
                              DONALD GALLICK, Assistant
                              Justice Center, 8th Floor
                              1200 Ontario Street
                              Cleveland, Ohio  44113
For defendant-appellant:      RYAN A. GLAZE
                              Attorney at Law
                              Paulozzi, Glaze & Rodstrom L.L.P.
                              12221 Madison Avenue
                              Lakewood, OH 44107
KENNETH A. ROCCO, P.J.:
     Appellant William D. Duckworth appeals from his conviction for
driving under the influence of alcohol in violation of  Cleveland
                               -2-
Codified Ordinance 433.01(a)(1).  We find that the trial court did
not  dispose of  all of  the charges  pending against  appellant.
Therefore,  we must  dismiss  this matter  for  lack of  a  final
appealable order.
     On October 27, 2000, appellant was cited for driving under the
influence of alcohol (  DUI ) in violation of Cleveland  Codified
Ordinance 433.01(a)(1); DUI  in violation  of Cleveland  Codified
Ordinance 433.01(a)(3) based on appellant's refusal to submit to a
breathalyzer test; impeding  the flow of traffic in violation  of
Cleveland Codified Ordinance 433.04; and failure to wear a safety
belt, in violation of Cleveland Codified Ordinance 437.27(b)(1).
     Appellant moved to suppress any evidence obtained as a result
of his warrantless arrest.  The court held a hearing on the motion
on January 22, 2001.  At the conclusion of the hearing, the court
found there was probable  cause to arrest appellant for DUI,  and
therefore overruled appellant's motion.      Appellant then filed
a jury demand.
     The case proceeded to a jury  trial on March 27, 2001.   The
transcript of the proceedings shows that the only issue submitted
to  the jury  was the  charge of  DUI in  violation of  Cleveland
Codified Ordinance 433.01(a)(1), and the jury found the appellant
guilty of that charge. However, the court's journal entry reflects
a  finding of guilt not  only on the DUI  charge but also on  the
charge of impeding the flow of traffic in violation of  Cleveland
Codified Ordinance 433.04; the court further nolled the charge of
DUI in violation of Cleveland Codified Ordinance 433.01(a)(3).
                               -3-
     A subsequent judgment entry indicates that the court sentenced
appellant to a five hundred dollar fine and 180 days in jail on the
DUI charge.  The court also imposed and suspended a fifty  dollar
fine for impeding the flow of traffic.  Nowhere in the record does
the court dispose of the charge of failure to wear a safety belt.
          *** the provisions of Criminal Rule 32(B) [now
          Crim.R.  32(C)] impose  on  a trial  court  a
          mandatory duty to set forth the verdict or its
          findings  as   to  each   and  every   charge
          prosecuted against an accused, and failure to
          do  so  renders  the  judgment  substantively
          deficient under the rule.   In [the]  absence
          of a  signed  journal  entry  reflecting  the
          court's ruling as to each charge, the order of
          the trial court is interlocutory.
State v. Brown  (1989), 59 Ohio  App.3d 1, 2;  also see State  v.
Collins (Oct. 18, 2001), Cuyahoga App. No. 79064, unreported.
     The trial  court here  did not  dispose of  all the  charges
against appellant. Therefore, it has not issued a final appealable
order.
     Appeal dismissed.
                               -4-
     This cause is dismissed.
     It is, therefore, considered  that said appellee recover  of
said appellant its costs herein.
     It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to 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.
                                        PRESIDING JUDGE
                                        KENNETH A. ROCCO
MICHAEL J. CORRIGAN, J. and
ANN DYKE, 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).
 
.