State v. Thompson, 2011 Ohio 1564

Thompson pled guilty to vehicular homicide, a first-degree misdemeanor, on May 21, 2010.
Judgment Entry of Sentence was filed July 13, 2010, though it bears a June 16, 2010 restitution hearing date by counsel agreement.
After a June 16 restitution hearing, the court ordered restitution of $14,706.48 as part of the sentence, but the Judgment Entry of Sentence was not amended to reflect restitution or delete the hearing reference.
Thompson appeals the restitution order and the State cross-appeals, challenging restitution issues, but the record raises jurisdiction questions.
The Fourth District holds there is no final appealable order, and therefore dismisses both the appeal and the cross-appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Judgment Entry of Sentence is a final, appealable order	Thompson argues restitution was unresolved and the judgment is not final.	State contends the order could be final or reviewable despite restitution language.	Judgment Entry of Sentence is not final or appealable.
Whether combining multiple entries can create a final appealable order	N/A	Only one document can constitute a final appealable order.	Cannot combine the judgment entry and restitution entry to create finality.
Whether the lack of a final appealable order deprives the court of jurisdiction to review the appeal and cross-appeal	Thompson seeks review of restitution as part of the appeal.	State seeks review of restitution issues on cross-appeal.	Court lacks jurisdiction; appeals are dismissed for lack of a final appealable order.

State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197 (2008-Ohio-3330) (only one document can constitute a final appealable order)
State v. Darget, Scioto App. No. 09CA3306, 2010-Ohio-3541 (2010) (nonfinal orders; sua sponte jurisdiction concerns)
State ex rel. Keith v. McMonagle, 103 Ohio St.3d 430, 2004-Ohio-5580 (2004) (finality and threshold for review in Ohio)
State v. Phillips, Cuyahoga App. No. 90124, 2008-Ohio-5101 (2008) (restitution not final where format indicates future proceedings)
In re Zakov, 107 Ohio App.3d 716 (1995) (interlocutory notation on restitution affects finality)
State v. Threatt, 2006-Ohio-905 (2006) (restitution determinations are substantive, not ministerial)
State v. Miller, 127 Ohio St.3d 407, 2010-Ohio-5705 (2010) (restitution involves a substantive judgment)
State v. Kline, Henry App. No. 7-10-09, 2010-Ohio-6378 (2010) ( Judgment Entry leaves restitution unresolved and not final)
State v. Threatt (additional), 2006-Ohio-905 (2006) (finality depends on substantive content of restitution)