[Cite as State v. Burgess, 2013-Ohio-234.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

STARK COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO 

 Plaintiff-Appellee 

-vsFRANCESCA BURGESS 

 Defendant-Appellant 

JUDGES: 

Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P. J. 

Hon. W. Scott Gwin, J. 

Hon. John W. Wise, J. 

Case No. 2012 CA 00119 

O P I N I O N 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal Appeal from the Court of Common 

Pleas, Case No. 2012 CR 00064 

JUDGMENT: Dismissed and Remanded 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: January 28, 2013 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant 

JOHN D. FERRERO JEFFRY V. SERRA 

PROSECUTING ATTORNEY THE FERRUCCIO LAW FIRM 

KATHLEEN TATARSKY 220 Market Avenue South 

ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR 400 Huntington Plaza 

110 Central Plaza South, Suite 510 Canton, Ohio 44702 

Canton, Ohio 44702 
Stark County, Case No. 2012 CA 00119 2

Wise, J. 

{¶1} Appellant Francesca Burgess appeals from her conviction and sentence, 

in the Court of Common Pleas, Stark County, for theft and evidence tampering. The 

relevant facts leading to this appeal are as follows. 

{¶2} Appellant was formerly a manager and bookkeeper for Stark Mold and 

Pattern, Inc., a small manufacturer in Canton, Ohio. In October 2010, the company 

president, Paul Dougherty, became aware of discrepancies in the company’s 

accounting. After further investigation by law enforcement officials, appellant was 

indicted by the Stark County Grand Jury on criminal charges stemming from her theft of 

company funds as a continuing course of conduct between May 2003 and October 

2010. 

{¶3} On March 2, 2012, appellant pled no contest to one count of grand theft 

(R.C. 2913.02(A)(1) and/or (A)(2) and/or (A)(3)), a felony of the fourth degree, and one 

count of tampering with records (R.C. 2913.42(A)(1)(B)(3)(c)), also a felony of the fourth 

degree. Thereafter, the trial court found appellant guilty of both offenses. See Judgment 

Entry, March 13, 2012. 

{¶4} On April 4, 2012, appellant returned to court for sentencing. On April 12, 

2012, the trial court sentenced her to four days in jail, with three years of community 

control. One of the conditions of community control was restitution in an amount to be 

determined, with the provision that appellant “shall receive credit for $9,400 already paid 

to [the] victim.” Sentencing Entry, April 12, 2012, at 6. A restitution hearing was therein 

ordered for May 16, 2012. Id. 
Stark County, Case No. 2012 CA 00119 3

{¶5} The court thereafter duly held a hearing to determine the amount of 

restitution to be paid by appellant. On May 24, 2012, the trial court issued a judgment 

entry addressing restitution as follows: 

{¶6} “This matter comes before the Court for a determination of restitution. 

After hearing the evidence in the within matter, the Court orders restitution in the 

amount of Seventy-two Thousand Five Hundred Thirty-five and no/100 Dollars 

($72,535.00). From this the Court would deduct any amounts that have been pre-paid 

by the defendant as part of the criminal case. The Court, therefore, orders that 

restitution will be set at Seventy-two Thousand Five Hundred Thirty-five and no/100 

Dollars ($72,535.00) minus any amount that has been re-paid during the pendency of 

the Court matter.” 

{¶7} Judgment Entry, May 24, 2012. 

{¶8} On June 21, 2012, appellant filed a notice of appeal of the order of 

restitution of May 24, 2012. She herein raises the following two Assignments of Error: 

{¶9} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN ORDERING THE 

APPELLANT TO PAY RESTITUTION IN THE AMOUNT OF ‘$72,535.00 MINUS ANY 

AMOUNT THAT HAS BEEN RE-PAID [SIC] DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE 

COURT MATTER’ AS SET FORTH IN THE TRIAL COURT'S JUDGMENT ENTRY 

DATED MAY 24, 2012. 

{¶10} “II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FAILING TO ESTABLISH THE 

AMOUNT OF RESTITUTION TO A DEGREE OF CERTAINTY, WHICH REFLECTS A 

REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP TO THE ACTUAL LOSS SUFFERED.” 

 
Stark County, Case No. 2012 CA 00119 4

I., II. 

{¶11} In her two Assignments of Error, appellant contends the trial court erred or 

abused its discretion in ordering appellant to pay certain restitution. 

{¶12} As an initial matter, as suggested in the State’s response brief, we 

address the issue of whether the judgment entry of restitution of May 24, 2012 

constitutes a final appealable order. 

{¶13} The Ohio Supreme Court has recognized that “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, 940 N.E.2d 924, 

2010-Ohio-5705, ¶16. Certainly, as the Ohio Supreme Court held at the syllabus in 

State v. Danison, 105 Ohio St.3d 127, 823 N.E.2d 444, 2005-Ohio-781, “[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.” We note, however, that 

Danison involved a single sentencing entry imposing community control sanctions and 

setting an amount certain for restitution, rather than an initial sentencing entry with a 

follow-up specific restitution order, as occurred in the case sub judice. In addition, 

subsequent to Danison, the Ohio Supreme Court issued its ruling in State v. Baker

(2008), 119 Ohio St .3d 197, 201, 893 N.E.2d 163, 2008–Ohio–3330, which requires 

that the plea (if applicable), means of conviction, and sentence all be set forth in one 

judgment entry. Baker was subsequently modified and clarified in State v. Lester, 130 

Ohio St.3d 303, 958 N.E.2d 142, 2011–Ohio–5204, wherein the Ohio Supreme Court 

held, at paragraph one of the syllabus: “A judgment of conviction is a final order subject 

to appeal under R.C. 2505.02 when it sets forth (1) the fact of the conviction, (2) the 
Stark County, Case No. 2012 CA 00119 5

sentence, (3) the judge's signature, and (4) the time stamp indicating the entry upon the 

journal by the clerk.” 

{¶14} A review of the present record patently reveals that the trial court’s oneparagraph judgment entry of restitution filed May 24, 2012 does not include the 

Baker/Lester criteria. In accordance with our recent decision in State v. Casteel, 

Tuscarawas App.No. 11AP110043, 2012-Ohio-2295, we hereby hold that while it is not 

improper for a trial court to render a supplemental restitution order after retaining 

jurisdiction to do so at sentencing, such restitution order must comply with the 

requirements of Baker and Lester in order to be recognized as a final appealable order. 

See, also, State v. Howse, Lorain App.No. 11CA010009, 2011-Ohio-6682, ¶ 6. 

{¶15} Accordingly, we are compelled to dismiss the within appeal and remand 

the matter to the trial court for the issuance of a final conviction, sentencing, and 

restitution entry in compliance with Baker and Lester. We therefore will not presently 

reach the merits of appellant’s two assigned errors. 

{¶16} For the reasons stated in the foregoing, the appeal of the decision of the 

Court of Common Pleas, Stark County, Ohio, is hereby dismissed, and the matter is 

remanded for a final sentencing entry. 

By: Wise, J. 

Delaney, P. J., and 

Gwin, J., concur. 

 ___________________________________ 

 ___________________________________ 

 ___________________________________ 

 JUDGES 

JWW/d 0104 
Stark County, Case No. 2012 CA 00119 6

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR STARK COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO : 

 : 

 Plaintiff-Appellee : 

 : 

-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY 

 : 

FRANCESCA BURGESS : 

 : 

 Defendant-Appellant : Case No. 2012 CA 00119 

 For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the appeal 

of the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Stark County, Ohio, is dismissed. 

This matter is remanded for a final sentencing entry. 

 Costs assessed to appellant. 

 ___________________________________ 

 ___________________________________ 

 ___________________________________ 

 JUDGES