2021 Ohio 1688
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Kyle Brasher pled guilty to one count of grand theft of a motor vehicle and was sentenced to an 18-month prison term; the original sentencing entry did not order restitution.
- Victim Deborah Howery filed a mandamus action under Marsy’s Law seeking enforcement of her constitutional right to restitution.
- This court granted Howery’s mandamus and directed the trial court to reopen sentencing.
- The trial court held a restitution hearing and later ordered Brasher to pay Howery $1,976.55, after Brasher had already completed his 18-month sentence and been released.
- Brasher appealed, arguing the trial court violated his due process and double jeopardy rights and lacked authority to order restitution after his sentence was fully served.
- The appellate court vacated the supplemental sentencing entry, holding the trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify a sentence after the prison term was completed; the other assignments were rendered moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether imposing restitution after defendant completed his prison term violated due process | Howery: Trial court must reopen sentencing and may order restitution under Marsy’s Law | Brasher: Court lacked jurisdiction to modify sentence after he completed incarceration | Court: Trial court lacked authority to modify completed sentence; supplemental entry void |
| Whether post-sentence restitution violated double jeopardy | Howery: Restitution is civil/compensatory and not double jeopardy | Brasher: Adding restitution after sentence completion is punitive and violates double jeopardy/finality | Held moot after resolving jurisdictional defect |
| Whether restitution awarded included items victims never sought | Howery: Sought restitution for her documented economic loss | Brasher: Trial court erred by awarding restitution not asserted by victims | Held moot after resolving jurisdictional defect |
| Whether trial court erred in calculating/ordering restitution | Howery: Calculation supported by testimony and evidence | Brasher: Calculation improper and trial court lacked authority post-release | Held moot after resolving jurisdictional defect |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Harper, 160 Ohio St.3d 480 (2020) (clarified void vs. voidable judgments; errors in exercise of jurisdiction render judgments voidable)
- State v. Holdcroft, 137 Ohio St.3d 526 (2013) (trial court lacks authority to resentence to add postrelease control after defendant has served the prison term)