State v. Moore, 2008-T-0018 (6-20-2008)
State v. Moore, 2008-T-0018 (6-20-2008)
Opinion of the Court
{¶ 2} According to Article
{¶ 3} "(1) An order that affects a substantial right in an action that in effect determines the action and prevents a judgment;
{¶ 4} "(2) An order that affects a substantial right made in a special proceeding or upon a summary application in an action after judgment."
{¶ 5} A final order in a criminal case generally means the sentencing judgment. State v. Shinkle (1986),
{¶ 6} Ohio courts have consistently held that the denial of a motion to vacate costs is not a final appealable order under R.C.
{¶ 7} In the present case, appellant was convicted of aggravated robbery, felonious assault, and kidnapping and sentenced to serve four years in prison on April 10, 2006. No appeal was taken from that judgment. Instead, on November 15, 2007, appellant filed a motion for relief from judgment requesting that the trial court vacate his court costs. On January 31, 2008, the trial court denied the motion. It is from that judgment that appellant presently appeals to this court.
{¶ 8} The filing of a motion to suspend costs did not extend the time to file an appeal from the April 10, 2006 judgment imposing appellant's sentence and ordering court costs. Stated differently, appellant cannot collaterally attack the sentencing order to pay costs through an appeal from the denial of his motion for relief from judgment. Appellant's time to appeal the April 10, 2006 judgment has elapsed, and since the *Page 3 denial of a motion to suspend costs does not affect a substantial right, the January 31, 2008 judgment is not a final appealable order.Fatica, supra.
{¶ 9} Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed for lack of a final appealable order.
{¶ 10} Appeal dismissed.
*Page 1CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J., TIMOTHY P. CANNON, J., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.