State v. Allen
2018 Ohio 305
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Allen was indicted for fourth-degree felony theft (May 17, 2011) and sought intervention in lieu of conviction under R.C. 2951.041, citing a gambling addiction.
- Trial court granted intervention after Allen pleaded guilty and an intervention plan was entered in June 2012; restitution (~$21,859.22) was discussed at the plea hearing but was omitted from the original written intervention entry.
- An amended intervention entry (May 12, 2015) added a restitution condition of $21,859.22 payable to Ohio Department of Job and Family Services.
- The State sought revocation on January 24, 2016 for Allen’s failure to make any restitution payments; at hearings Allen stipulated probable cause, acknowledged nonpayment, and represented she was employed in an apprenticeship earning at least $15.02/hr.
- After a continued revocation process, the trial court revoked intervention (April 13, 2017), accepted Allen’s prior plea, and imposed two years community control with restitution as a condition and a six-month prison sanction for violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could revoke intervention based solely on failure to pay restitution | State: Revocation was proper because Allen failed to comply with an explicit restitution condition of the voluntary intervention plan | Allen: Intervention cannot be revoked for failure to pay restitution without first determining ability to pay | Court: Revocation proper. Intervention is voluntary; Allen agreed to restitution and failed to make payments despite opportunities. Revocation under R.C. 2951.041(F) required. |
| Whether imposing restitution as a condition of community control without an ability-to-pay hearing violated due process | State: Court considered Allen’s present and future ability to pay in the record and the judgment entry, satisfying R.C. 2929.18/2929.19 requirements | Allen: Trial court erred by ordering restitution without holding a hearing to determine ability to pay | Court: No error. Record and entry show the court considered Allen’s present/future ability to pay (employment, owed funds). No specific findings required; some evidence suffices. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983) (probation revocation when defendant willfully failed to pay—due-process standard requiring inquiry into ability to pay)
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) (procedural protections for revocation of conditional liberty interests)
- Black v. Romano, 471 U.S. 606 (1985) (due-process standards for revocation proceedings)
- United States v. Reed, 573 F.2d 1020 (8th Cir. 1978) (probation-revocation authority related to nonpayment)
- State v. Scott, 6 Ohio App.3d 39 (Ohio Ct. App. 1982) (cases addressing probation revocation for nonpayment of restitution)
- State v. Walden, 54 Ohio App.3d 160 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988) (probation revocation and restitution nonpayment issues)