[Cite as State v. Dudley, 2014-Ohio-430.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

ASHLAND COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES: 

 : 

 : Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. 

 Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. 

 : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. 

-vs- : 

 : Case No. 13-COA-016 

 : 

LARRY W. DUDLEY, JR. : 

 : 

 : 

 Defendant-Appellant : O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Ashland County Court 

of Common Pleas, Case No. 13-CRI024 

JUDGMENT: APPEAL DISMISSED 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: January 15, 2014 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellee: For Defendant-Appellant: 

 

RAMONA J. ROGERS ERIN N. POPLAR 

ASHLAND CO. PROSECUTOR 103 Milan Ave., Suite 6 

PAUL T. LANGE Amherst, OH 44001 

110 Cottage Street, Third Floor 

Ashland, OH 44805 

 
Ashland County, Case No.13-COA-016 2 

Delaney, J. 

{¶1} Appellant Larry W. Dudley, Jr. appeals from the May 16, 2013 Judgment 

Entry – Sentencing of the Ashland County Court of Common Pleas. Appellee is the 

state of Ohio. This case is related to but not consolidated with State v. Dudley, 5th Dist. 

Ashland No. 13-COA-017. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

{¶2} A statement of the facts underlying appellant's original conviction is 

unnecessary to our disposition of this appeal. 

{¶3} Appellant was charged and ultimately entered pleas of no contest to the 

following charges in two separate criminal cases: 

Case No. Count 

No. 

Offense Revised Code 

Section 

Degree Sentence 

12-CRI1311 I Burglary 2911.12(A)(3) F3 30 months 

12-CRI1311 III Burglary 2911.12(A)(3) F3 30 months 

12-CRI1311 IV Burglary 2911.12(A)(3) F3 30 months 

13-CRI-024 I B & E 2911.13(A) F5 12 months 

13-CRI-024 II Theft 2913.02(A)(1) M1 90 days 

13-CRI-024 III Theft 2913.02(A)(1) M1 90 days 

13-CRI-024 IV B & E 2911.13(A) F5 12 months 

13-CRI-024 V Theft 2913.02(A)(1) M1 90 days 

13-CRI-024 VI B & E 2911.13(A) F5 12 months 

13-CRI-024 VII Theft 2913.02(A)(1) M1 90 days 

13-CRI-024 VIII Theft 

from 

elderly 

person 

2913.02(A)(1) F5 12 months 

{¶4} After appellant changed his pleas and prior to entering sentences, the trial 

court ordered a presentence investigation (P.S.I.) which has been made part of the 

record on appeal. The lengthy P.S.I. indicates appellant engaged in a series of thefts 
Ashland County, Case No.13-COA-016 3 

and burglaries with a cohort to support a serious drug habit. Appellant has an extensive 

criminal history of similar offenses. 

{¶5} In this case, the trial court found consecutive sentences are necessary to 

protect the public from future crimes and to punish the offender and are not 

disproportionate to the seriousness of appellant’s conduct. The felony sentences were 

therefore ordered to be served consecutively for an aggregate prison term of eleven and 

a half years. (The misdemeanor sentences were ordered to be served concurrently.) 

{¶6} As the trial court sentenced appellant to prison, appellant cursed and 

threatened the trial judge. Appellant was therefore removed from the courtroom and 

sentencing continued. 

{¶7} Restitution was a significant issue at sentencing. Items stolen by 

appellant included copper pipe from a house, the removal of which caused flooding and 

significant damage. Appellee reported a restitution amount of $89,000 for that victim, 

although the victim had not yet presented any documentation. At sentencing, after 

appellant’s removal from the courtroom, the trial court stated the following regarding 

restitution: 

* * *. 

I am assessing the Court costs in this matter including the $30 fee 

required pursuant to Section 2949.041 and the $30 fee required 

pursuant to Section 2743.70, and the $25 fee required to Section 

120.36. I am further Ordering that [appellant] pay restitution to 

Heather Harrison in the amount of $2,578, that he pay restitution to 

Phillip Lininger in the amount of $500, that he pay restitution to 
Ashland County, Case No.13-COA-016 4 

Jerry Smith in the amount of $900, and that he pay restitution to 

Teresa Stackhouse in the amount of $87,500, although I do 

want to make that Order subject to some documentation either 

in the form of a settlement or what have you, that provides the 

Court with a little more verification that in fact was the amount, 

the $89,000 was the amount of the insurance claim. (Emphasis 

added.) 

* * *. 

{¶8} The resulting Judgment Entry – Sentencing of the trial court filed May 16, 

2013 states the following regarding restitution: 

The Defendant is ORDERED to make restitution in the amount of 

Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) to Phillip Leininger; Nine Hundred 

Dollars ($900.00) to Jerry Smith; Eighty-Seven Thousand Five 

Hundred Dollars ($87,500.00) to Theresa Stackhouse, the victims 

in this case. In regards to the restitution order for Theresa 

Stackhouse, the Court’s restitution order is being issued 

subject to the Court receiving written documentation in 

support of the amount of restitution ordered. If the Court does 

not receive written documentation from Ms. Stackhouse, the 

Court may set aside the restitution order for her. (Emphasis 

added.) 

{¶9} Appellant now appeals from the judgment entry of conviction and 

sentence entered by the trial court on May 16, 2013. 
Ashland County, Case No.13-COA-016 5 

{¶10} Appellant raises five assignments of error: 

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR 

{¶11} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT IMPOSED PRISON 

SENTENCES FOR FOUR FIFTH DEGREE FELONIES WITHOUT MAKING A 

SPECIFIC FINDING THAT ANY FACTOR CONTAINED IN OHIO REVISED CODE 

2929.13(B)(1)(b) APPLY (sic) RELATIVE TO APPELLANT.” 

{¶12} “II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT IMPOSED CONSECUTIVE 

12-MONTH SENTENCES FOR FOUR FIFTH DEGREE FELONY CONVICTIONS 

SUCH THAT THE AGGREGATE SENTENCE EXCEEDED THE MAXIMUM PRISON 

TERM ALLOWED BY OHIO REVISED CODE 2929.14(A) FOR THE MOST SERIOUS 

OFFENSE OF WHICH THE APPELLANT WAS CONVICTED, 12 MONTHS.” 

{¶13} “III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO (sic) ORDERING APPELLANT TO 

PAY MORE THAN $90,000.00 IN RESTITUTION WITHOUT SUPPORTING 

DOCUMENTATION, OUTSIDE OF APPELLANT’S PRESENCE AND IN AN 

UNDETERMINED AMOUNT.” 

{¶14} “IV. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, APPELLANT WAS DENIED EFFECTIVE 

ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AS GUARANTEED BY THE SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH 

AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I, 

SECTION 10 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION BECAUSE HIS COUNSEL DID NOT 

DISPUTES (sic) RESTITUTION AMOUNTS OR REQUEST A HEARING ON 

RESTITUTION.” 

{¶15} “V. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ORDERING MAXIMUM 

CONSECUTIVE PRISON SENTENCES FOR FIFTH DEGREE FELONIES AS THE 
Ashland County, Case No.13-COA-016 6 

IMPOSITION OF SUCH SENTENCES PLACES AN UNNECESSARY BURDEN ON 

STATE RESOURCES.” 

ANALYSIS 

I., II., III., IV., V.

{¶16} As an initial matter, we must address whether the judgment entry of May 

16, 2013 constitutes a final appealable order in light of the indefinite restitution order 

For the following reasons, we find it does not, and therefore we dismiss the within 

appeal for lack of a final appealable order. 

{¶17} The Ohio Supreme Court has recognized “the determination of restitution 

entails a substantive legal decision or judgment and is not merely a mechanical part of a 

judgment.” State v. Miller, 127 Ohio St.3d 407, 2010–Ohio–5705, 940 N.E.2d 924, ¶ 16. 

Generally, as the Court held at the syllabus in State v. Danison, 105 Ohio St.3d 127, 

2005–Ohio–781, 823 N.E .2d 444, “[a]n order of restitution imposed by the sentencing 

court on an offender for a felony is part of the sentence and, as such, is a final and 

appealable order.” 

{¶18} Where a judgment entry does not settle either the amount of restitution or 

the method of payment, however, it is not a final appealable order. State v. Kuhn, 3rd 

Dist. Defiance No. 4–05–23, 2006–Ohio–1145, ¶ 8; In re Zakov, 107 Ohio App.3d 716, 

718, 669 N.E.2d 344 (11th Dist.1995); In re Holmes, 70 Ohio App.2d 75, 77, 434 N.E.2d 

747 (1st Dist.1980). In this case, a significant order of restitution is dependent upon one 

victim submitting proof of her insurance claim or other documentation satisfactory to the 

trial court. 
Ashland County, Case No.13-COA-016 7 

{¶19} We note the record is silent as to whether any party has requested a 

hearing to finalize this restitution amount. 

{¶20} The May 16, 2013 entry thus lacks a complete sentence and is merely 

interlocutory. State v. Riggs, 5th Dist. Licking No. 2009 CA 00041, 2009-Ohio-6821, fn 

2. Accordingly, we find there is no final appealable order in this case. 

{¶21} Appellant’s appeal is therefore dismissed. 

CONCLUSION 

{¶22} For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is dismissed for lack of a final 

appealable order. 

By: Delaney, J. and 

Hoffman, P.J. 

Baldwin, J., concur.