City of Toledo v. Kakissis, L-07-1215 (3-21-2008)

Ohio Court of Appeals

City of Toledo v. Kakissis, L-07-1215 (3-21-2008)

2008 Ohio 1299

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 21, 2008

DocketNo. L-07-1215.

StatusUnpublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 2008 Ohio 1299 (City of Toledo v. Kakissis, L-07-1215 (3-21-2008)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of Toledo v. Kakissis, L-07-1215 (3-21-2008), 2008 Ohio 1299 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY {¶ 1} Appellant, Soterios J. Kakissis, appeals his conviction in the Toledo Municipal Court for unlawful restraint, a third degree misdemeanor. Because the order appealed from is not final and appealable, we hereby dismiss this appeal.

{¶ 2} This case began in 2005, when a victim alleged that appellant molested her in his home while she was employed there to work on his garden. On April 4, 2007, *Page 2 appellant entered a no contest plea to unlawful restraint, a violation, Toledo Municipal Code 537.08. On May 22, 2007, the court sentenced him to serve 60 days in jail with 50 of those days suspended. He received a stay on his jail time until August 1, 2007. He was fined $500 and placed on probation for three years. The court also ordered him to pay the victim's past and current psychological bills, adding that future bills were to be reviewed by the court every six months. On June 14, 2007, appellant filed a motion to reconsider his sentence. Following a hearing on the motion, the court denied his request. Appellant has filed this appeal setting forth six assignments of error challenging his sentence.

{¶ 3} A judgment entry ordering restitution is not final and appealable if the entry fails to provide either the amount of restitution or the method of payment In re Holmes (1980),70 Ohio App.2d 75; State v. Kuhn, 3d Dist. No. 4-05-23, 2006-Ohio-1145; State v.Lange, 3d Dist. No. 10-06-28, 2007-Ohio-2280.

{¶ 4} The sentencing order at issue in this case does not specify the amount of restitution or the method of payment. Because the judgment sought to be appealed is not a final, appealable order, we lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal. R.C. 2505.02. This appeal is hereby ordered dismissed at appellant's costs.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

*Page 3

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. See, also, 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.

Peter M. Handwork, J., Arlene Singer, J., Thomas J. Osowik, J. CONCUR.

*Page 1

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY {¶ 1} Appellant, Soterios J. Kakissis, appeals his conviction in the Toledo Municipal Court for unlawful restraint, a third degree misdemeanor. Because the order appealed from is not final and appealable, we hereby dismiss this appeal.

{¶ 2} This case began in 2005, when a victim alleged that appellant molested her in his home while she was employed there to work on his garden. On April 4, 2007, *Page 2 appellant entered a no contest plea to unlawful restraint, a violation, Toledo Municipal Code 537.08. On May 22, 2007, the court sentenced him to serve 60 days in jail with 50 of those days suspended. He received a stay on his jail time until August 1, 2007. He was fined $500 and placed on probation for three years. The court also ordered him to pay the victim's past and current psychological bills, adding that future bills were to be reviewed by the court every six months. On June 14, 2007, appellant filed a motion to reconsider his sentence. Following a hearing on the motion, the court denied his request. Appellant has filed this appeal setting forth six assignments of error challenging his sentence.

{¶ 3} A judgment entry ordering restitution is not final and appealable if the entry fails to provide either the amount of restitution or the method of payment In re Holmes (1980),70 Ohio App.2d 75; State v. Kuhn, 3d Dist. No. 4-05-23, 2006-Ohio-1145; State v.Lange, 3d Dist. No. 10-06-28, 2007-Ohio-2280.

{¶ 4} The sentencing order at issue in this case does not specify the amount of restitution or the method of payment. Because the judgment sought to be appealed is not a final, appealable order, we lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal. R.C. 2505.02. This appeal is hereby ordered dismissed at appellant's costs.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

*Page 3

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. See, also, 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.

Peter M. Handwork, J., Arlene Singer, J., Thomas J. Osowik, J. CONCUR.

*Page 1

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2008 Ohio 1299, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-toledo-v-kakissis-l-07-1215-3-21-2008-ohioctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack