State v. Betley, 2018 Ohio 2516

Defendant Bret M. Betley (grandson) pleaded guilty to misuse of a credit card, theft, and petty theft for charges made on his 75-year-old grandfather’s credit cards spanning Sept. 2016–Mar. 2017.
Grandfather reported varying totals to police, probation, and in victim-impact statements: roughly $22,958.22 (first case) and $5,459.47 or $8,500 (second case), producing inconsistent totals in police reports, PSI, and victim statements.
At plea/sentencing the state said the credit-card companies were still holding Grandfather liable and he had not paid; the state sought restitution but could not confirm which amounts would be enforced or forgiven.
Defense objected to restitution, arguing lack of proof which charges were unauthorized and disputing the proper restitution amount; Grandfather did not appear at sentencing to resolve discrepancies.
The trial court ordered $22,400 in restitution (split between the two cases), relying on Grandfather’s victim-impact statements despite conflicting records.
Betley appealed the restitution order; the appellate court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine restitution amounts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether restitution may be ordered where victim’s economic loss is unclear	State argued Grandfather remained liable to card companies and restitution is appropriate to compensate that economic loss	Betley argued the record lacked proof of actual economic loss or which charges were unauthorized, risking double recovery	Court held restitution may be ordered generally but here the amount was not proved to a reasonable degree of certainty and remanded for an evidentiary hearing
Whether an evidentiary hearing was required before awarding restitution	State suggested documentation existed (credit card statements provided in discovery) and Grandfather’s written statements supported restitution	Betley argued an evidentiary hearing was necessary because amounts conflicted and victim was unavailable to explain discrepancies	Court held an evidentiary hearing was required because the record did not support a definite restitution amount

State v. Lalain, 994 N.E.2d 423 (Ohio 2013) (trial court has discretion to order restitution)
State v. Gears, 733 N.E.2d 683 (Ohio Ct. App.) (restitution amount must be supported by competent, credible evidence)
State v. Preztak, 907 N.E.2d 1254 (Ohio Ct. App.) (evidentiary hearing required when restitution evidence is absent from record)
State v. Bowman, 909 N.E.2d 170 (Ohio Ct. App.) (restitution cannot result in double recovery for victim)
State v. Maurer, 63 N.E.3d 534 (Ohio Ct. App.) (standard of review: abuse of discretion for restitution orders)