State v. Bonish, 2021 Ohio 2436

In 2013 Bonish was indicted for theft of a John Deere skid loader from Wellman Rental & Supply; he later pleaded guilty to one count (fourth-degree felony) in 2019.
At plea hearing the prosecutor, defense counsel, and Bonish repeatedly acknowledged an agreed restitution amount of $950 to reimburse costs to transport the recovered skid loader back to the victim.
The prosecutor recited facts that the victim paid $950 to retrieve/transfer the equipment from Pennsylvania; Bonish admitted those facts and the plea court accepted the plea.
Bonish did not participate in the presentence investigation and did not appear at sentencing; the court sentenced him to 10 months imprisonment and ordered $950 restitution.
On appeal Bonish argued the restitution order was contrary to law because the prosecutor’s statements were insufficient to support the $950 award.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the $950 restitution order is reviewable and contrary to law	State: restitution was part of the plea agreement and supported by victim’s payment; sentence authorized by law	Bonish: prosecutor’s statements were insufficient to establish restitution amount under R.C. 2929.18(A)(1)	Court: Appeal barred by R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) because restitution was jointly recommended and authorized; alternatively, restitution was supported by defendant’s stipulation and victim’s payment

State v. Underwood, 922 N.E.2d 923 (Ohio 2010) (an agreed-upon, authorized sentence recommended by both defendant and prosecution is not subject to appellate review under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1))
State v. Burns, 976 N.E.2d 969 (6th Dist. 2012) (defendant barred from challenging restitution on appeal where restitution was agreed to as part of plea agreement)