State v. Arde, 190 Ohio App. 3d 196

Arde embezzled $348,953.82 while serving as financial manager for Direct Management entities.
She pleaded guilty to three felonies—aggravated theft, grand theft, and tampering with records—in exchange for a three-year sentence and restitution.
The trial court stated the three-year term was conditioned on good conduct, reporting to probation, and attendance at sentencing.
Arde complied with these conditions, including showing up for appointments and sentencing, but the court later found she failed to provide specifics about the whereabouts of the embezzled money.
The court concluded it could not enforce the three-year term and sentenced Arde to a nine-year aggregate term and restitution of $348,953.82.
Arde appealed, arguing the plea agreement should have honored the three-year term given her compliance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the court error by imposing nine years instead of the negotiated three-year term?	Arde argues she complied with the conditions and the court bound itself to the three-year sentence.	The state contends Arde failed to satisfy conditions, particularly cooperation/clarity about money, allowing deviation from the agreement.	Yes; the three-year term should be enforced.
Was the restitution amount correctly stated or moot to the appeal?	Arde contends restitution amount differed from negotiated total.	The court already corrected restitution to the negotiated sum.	Moot; corrected to $348,953.82.

State v. Bethel, 110 Ohio St.3d 416 (Ohio 2006) (ambiguity in plea agreements construed against the State)
State v. Asberry, 173 Ohio App.3d 443 (Ohio App. 2007) (trial court must honor accepted plea; departure voids sentence)
State v. Patrick, 163 Ohio App.3d 666 (Ohio App. 2005) (court must enforce the agreed sentence if plea is accepted)