[Cite as In re J.A., 2012-Ohio-2184.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

LAWRENCE COUNTY 

IN THE MATTER OF: : 

 : 

 J.A., : Case No. 11CA27 

 : 

ADJUDICATED DELINQUENT CHILD : 

AND JUVENILE TRAFFIC OFFENDER. : DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY

 : 

 : RELEASED 04/30/12

 : 

_______________________________________________________________ 

APPEARANCES: 

Timothy Young, Ohio State Public Defender, and Laura E. Austen, Ohio State 

Assistant Public Defender, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant. 

J.B. Collier, Jr., Lawrence County Prosecuting Attorney, and Kevin J. Waldo, 

Lawrence County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Ironton, Ohio, for Appellee. 

________________________________________________________________ 

Harsha, J. 

{¶1} J.A. appeals the juvenile court’s judgment adjudicating him a 

delinquent child and suspending his ability to obtain a driver’s license until his 

eighteenth birthday. He raises one assignment of error, but because the trial 

court ordered restitution without specifying the amount or method of payment, its 

order does not constitute a final, appealable order. Consequently, we lack 

jurisdiction to consider J.A.’s appeal and must dismiss it. 

I. FACTS 

{¶2} After J.A. crashed his parents’ vehicle into a house, he was 

charged with (1) driving without a driver’s license, in violation of R.C. 4510.12, (2) 

failure to wear a safety belt, in violation of R.C. 4513.263, (3) hit-skip, in violation 

of R.C. 4549.02, and (4) failure to control, in violation of R.C. 4511.202. A 
Lawrence App. No. 11CA27 2

subsequent complaint alleged J.A. to be a delinquent child for committing three 

counts of vandalism, in violation of R.C. 2909.05. 

{¶3} Following an adjudicatory hearing, the court found J.A. to be a 

delinquent child for committing (1) vandalism, a fourth degree felony, (2) two 

counts of criminal damaging, second-degree misdemeanors, and (3) hit/skip. 

The court dismissed the driving without a license, seat belt, and failure to control 

charges. As part of its dispositional order, the court ordered J.A. to pay 

restitution, but it did not fix the amount or payment method. Instead, the court set 

the restitution matter for a further hearing. The court entered additional 

dispositional orders that are not presently relevant. 

II. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 

{¶4} J.A. raises one assignment of error: 

“The juvenile court erred when it restricted J.A.’s future right to 

obtain a driver’s license.” 

III. NO FINAL, APPEALABLE ORDER 

{¶5} Because the trial court failed to set the amount of, or payment 

method for, restitution, its order does not constitute a final, appealable order, and 

we are without jurisdiction to review J.A.’s appeal. Appellate courts “have such 

jurisdiction as may be provided by law to review and affirm, modify, or reverse 

judgments or final orders of the courts of record inferior to the court of appeals 

within the district[.]” Ohio Constitution, Article IV, Section 3(B)(2). If a court's 

order is not final and appealable, we have no jurisdiction to review the matter and 

must dismiss the appeal. E.g., Eddie v. Saunders, 4th Dist. No. 07CA7, 2008–

Ohio–4755, ¶11. If the parties do not raise the jurisdictional issue, we must raise 
Lawrence App. No. 11CA27 3

it sua sponte. E.g., State v. Locke, 4th Dist. No. 11 CA3409, 2011–Ohio–5596, 

¶4. 

{¶6} When a judgment entry orders restitution but fails to set the amount 

or method of payment, the entry is not a final, appealable order. In re Holmes, 

70 Ohio App.2d 75, 77, 434 N.E.2d 747 (1980). Accord State v. Korosi, 8th Dist. 

No. 95404, 2011-Ohio-2524; State v. Thompson, 4th Dist. No. 10CA3177, 2011-

Ohio-1564; State v. Phillips, 8th Dist. No. 90124, 2008-Ohio-5101; State v. Kuhn,

3rd Dist. No. 4-05-23, 2006-Ohio-1145; In re Alonzo B., 6th Dist. No. E-98-050 

(Feb. 12, 1999); In re Zakov, 107 Ohio App.3d 716, 669 N.E.2d 344 (1995). As 

we explained in Thompson: 

The July 13, 2010 Judgment Entry of Sentence is not final 

and appealable because it “‘leaves issues unresolved and 

contemplates that further action must be taken[.]’” State v. Kline,

Henry App. No. 7–10–09, 2010–Ohio–6378, at ¶4, quoting State ex 

rel. Keith v. McMonagle, 103 Ohio St.3d 430, 816 N.E.2d 597, 

2004–Ohio–5580, at ¶4 (other internal quotation omitted). See, 

also, State v. Phillips, Cuyahoga App. No. 90124, 2008–Ohio-5101, 

at ¶5, citing State v. Threatt, 108 Ohio St.3d 277, 843 N.E.2d 164, 

2006–Ohio–905, at ¶20. Here, the Judgment Entry of Sentence 

states that “[a] restitution hearing will be on June 16, 2010 at 2:00 

P.M., by agreement of counsel.” Thus, the Judgment Entry of 

Sentence leaves the issue of restitution unresolved and 

contemplates further action related to restitution. 

Other courts have found that similar judgment entries were 

not final and appealable. For example, in Phillips, the judgment 

entry stated that the trial “[c]ourt reserve[d] Judgment on restitution 

amount until further proceedings[.]” Phillips at ¶3. As a result, the 

Eighth District Court of Appeals found that the entry was not final 

and appealable. Additionally, the Eleventh District Court of Appeals 

found “that the notation ‘Restitution to be determined’ render[s an] 

entry interlocutory.” In re Zakov (1995), 107 Ohio App.3d 716, 718, 

669 N.E.2d 344. * * * * 

Id. at ¶¶7-8. 
Lawrence App. No. 11CA27 4

{¶7} Here, as in Thompson, the trial court’s entry set the restitution 

matter for a further hearing and thus, contemplates further action and leaves the 

restitution issue unresolved.1

 Because its entry leaves an issue unresolved, the 

entry does not constitute a final, appealable order. Accordingly, we lack 

jurisdiction to consider J.A.’s appeal and must dismiss it. 

APPEAL DISMISSED. 

 

1

 Upon the trial court’s journalization of an order that resolves the restitution issues, J.A. should 

file a new notice of appeal if he wishes to pursue his appeal. If such a notice of appeal would be 

untimely, he may pursue a delayed appeal under App. R. 5(A). 
Lawrence App. No. 11CA27 5

JUDGMENT ENTRY

 It is ordered that the APPEAL IS DISMISSED and that Appellant shall pay 

the costs. 

 The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

 It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the 

Lawrence County Common Pleas Court, Probate/Juvenile Division, to carry this 

judgment into execution. 

 IF A STAY OF EXECUTION OF SENTENCE AND RELEASE UPON BAIL 

HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY GRANTED BY THE TRIAL COURT OR THIS 

COURT, it is temporarily continued for a period not to exceed sixty days upon the 

bail previously posted. The purpose of a continued stay is to allow Appellant to 

file with the Supreme Court of Ohio an application for a stay during the pendency 

of proceedings in that court. If a stay is continued by this entry, it will terminate at 

the earlier of the expiration of the sixty day period, or the failure of the Appellant 

to file a notice of appeal with the Supreme Court of Ohio in the forty-five day 

appeal period pursuant to Rule II, Sec. 2 of the Rules of Practice of the Supreme 

Court of Ohio. Additionally, if the Supreme Court of Ohio dismisses the appeal 

prior to expiration of sixty days, the stay will terminate as of the date of such 

dismissal. 

 A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 

27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Exceptions. 

Abele, P.J. & Kline, J.: Concur in Judgment and Opinion. 

 For the Court 

 BY: ________________________ 

 William H. Harsha, Judge 

NOTICE TO COUNSEL 

 Pursuant to Local Rule No. 14, this document constitutes a final 

judgment entry and the time period for further appeal commences from the 

date of filing with the clerk.