State v. Anderson
124 N.E.3d 335
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Appellant Lorell Anderson pled guilty (Alford plea) to one count of Medicaid fraud and one merged theft count for billing Medicaid for services not provided, resulting in $25,285.80 in overpayments.
- The trial court accepted the plea, ordered a pre-sentence investigation (PSI), and scheduled sentencing.
- Appellant filed a pre-sentencing motion asserting he lacked present and future ability to pay financial sanctions because of severe medical conditions (dialysis, strokes, surgeries) preventing employment.
- At sentencing the court heard argument, reviewed the PSI, questioned the appellant about employment ability, and received letters from treating physicians (but indicated additional verification could be submitted).
- The court sentenced appellant to two years of non-reporting community control and ordered restitution of $25,285.80 to the Ohio Dept. of Job and Family Services, waiving fines and costs. Appellant appealed solely on the ground the trial court failed to determine ability to pay before ordering restitution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court complied with R.C. 2929.19(B)(5) by considering appellant's present and future ability to pay before ordering restitution | State argued the court complied: it had a PSI, heard oral statements at sentencing, questioned appellant, and expressly stated in the judgment entry it considered ability to pay | Anderson argued the court failed to determine ability to pay and that his severe medical conditions made any present or future ability to pay unrealistic, so restitution should not have been ordered | Court held the record shows the court considered ability to pay (PSI, hearing, questioning, and judgment entry); the order was not clearly and convincingly contrary to law and restitution could be imposed despite appellant’s asserted indigency |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lalain, 994 N.E.2d 423 (Ohio 2013) (trial court has discretion to order restitution as part of a felony sentence and restitution must reflect the victim's economic loss)
- State v. Marcum, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (Ohio 2016) (appellate standard for reviewing felony sentences is whether the sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law rather than abuse of discretion)