OPINION

I THE TRIAL COURT BELOW ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT WHEN IT IMPOSED A RESTITUTION WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE OFFENDER IS ABLE TO PAY THE SANCTION.

It is further Ordered that the defendant is to pay restitution in the amount of $96.00 to the Tuscarawas County Sheriff, 2295 Reiser Avenue SE, New Philadelphia, Ohio, 44663; and $6,170.00 to the Ohio Bureau of Worker's Compensation, Canton Services Officer, 4895 Dressler Road NW, PO Box 35545, Canton, Ohio, 44735, for the losses incurred by the victim herein.

R.C. 2929.18(A)(1) provides the following: (A) Except as otherwise provided in this division and in addition to imposing court costs pursuant to section 2947.23 of the Revised Code, the court imposing a sentence upon an offender for a felony may sentence the offender to any financial sanction or combination of financial sanctions authorized under this section or, in the circumstances specified in section 2929.25 of the Revised Code, may impose upon the offender a fine in accordance with that section. * * * Financial sanctions that may be imposed pursuant to this section include, but are not limited to, the following:

(1) Restitution by the offender to the victim of the offender's crime or any survivor of the victim, in an amount based on the victim's economic loss.

Subsection (E) states "[a] court that imposes a financial sanction upon an offender may hold a hearing if necessary to determine whether the offender is able to pay the sanction or is likely in the future to be able to pay it." We note there is no mandatory language in the statute for the trial court to hold a hearing. At the sentencing hearing, appellant testified he has previous work experience in Mansfield, Ohio as a drywaller, has been employed at a festival and receives social security benefits. T. at 6-7. Appellant never requested a hearing on ability to pay. Furthermore, as this writer has stated in a dissent in City of Alliance v. McDonald (April 24, 1995), Stark App. No. 1994CA00295, unreported, the imposition of a restitution order is not a final appealable order until a hearing is held to enforce payment. The sole assignment of error is denied. The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County, Ohio is hereby affirmed. By Farmer, J. Gwin, P.J. concur. Hoffman, J. concurs separately.

I fully concur in the majority's disposition of appellant's sole assignment of error. I write separately only to voice my disagreement with the statement of the majority the imposition of a restitution order is not a final appealable order until a hearing is held to enforce payment.