State v. Goodman, 2014 Ohio 4884

Goodman appeals the trial court's denial of a motion to establish a payment plan for court costs; the appellate court dismisses for lack of jurisdiction.
He was convicted in 2004–2006 for a robbery spree and sentenced to prison; the judgment included costs of prosecution.
This court previously affirmed the costs issue on direct appeal; the Supreme Court declined jurisdiction.
In 2009 he moved to vacate his sentence; the court denied, and cost issues were not raised in the petition.
In 2014 he again sought a payment plan; the court denied, later characterized as res judicata; this appeal followed.
The Eleventh District dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, citing final-judgment and res judicata principles.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Finality of denial for payment plan appeal	Goodman argues he has a statutory right to a court-ordered payment plan under RC 2947.23 and due process/equal protection.	Court denial is not a final appealable order and res judicata applies.	Not a final appealable order; even if final, res judicata applies.
Effect of res judicata on second motion	New RC 2947.23(C) modifies jurisdiction and allows payment-plan relief.	Second denial seeks the same relief as the first and is barred by res judicata.	Barred by res judicata.
Appellate jurisdiction to review denial of payment plan	Appellate review should extend to the trial court's denial of a payment plan.	There is no jurisdiction absent a final appealable order.	Jurisdiction lacking; appeal dismissed.

State v. Pasqualone, 140 Ohio App.3d 650 (11th Dist.2000) (final-appealability and substantial rights framework; denial of costs not final)
State v. Shinkle, 27 Ohio App.3d 54 (12th Dist.1986) (final-appealability concepts; costs issues not final)
State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967) (res judicata principle in criminal convictions)