State v. Brasher, 2022 Ohio 4703

Background

Defendant Kyle Brasher pled guilty to grand theft of a motor vehicle and was sentenced in October 2018 to 18 months’ imprisonment; the sentencing entry did not order restitution.
The victims (Howery and Hammon) had provided restitution information in a victim-impact statement but were not present at sentencing and did not obtain the prosecutor to assert their restitution request.
The victims filed a mandamus action (March 2019) seeking a restitution hearing; while that action was pending the trial court set and then held a restitution hearing (July 2020) and issued a supplemental restitution order (Aug 18, 2020).
Brasher had completed his prison term by February 2020; the Twelfth District held that once Brasher completed his sentence the trial court lacked jurisdiction to impose restitution and vacated the August 2020 order.
The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed: Marsy’s Law permits victims to seek appellate review (a “petition”) and, because the victims did not timely appeal the denial of restitution, the trial court’s later restitution order—entered after it lost jurisdiction and after Brasher’s sentence was complete—was void.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a victim may collaterally seek a writ of mandamus to obtain restitution under Marsy’s Law instead of pursuing direct appeal	Victim/state: Marsy’s Law allows meaningful review and original actions (mandamus) to enforce victim rights	Brasher: Victims had an adequate remedy by direct appeal and mandamus was inappropriate	Court: “Petition” under Marsy’s Law includes direct appeal; where appeal is an adequate remedy victims must timely appeal rather than rely on mandamus
Whether a trial court retains jurisdiction to impose restitution after the defendant completes the prison term and the judgment becomes final	State: Trial court may correct prior proceedings and impose restitution post-completion	Brasher: Court lost jurisdiction after sentence completion; late restitution is void	Court: Trial court lost jurisdiction after defendant completed sentence; supplemental restitution order was void
Whether imposing restitution after sentence completion violates Double Jeopardy/finality	State: Marsy’s Law requires victim compensation and court can correct restitution error	Brasher: Imposing additional criminal sanction after finality violates double jeopardy and defendant’s expectation of finality	Court (majority): resolved on jurisdiction/res judicata; concurrences emphasize double-jeopardy and finality independently bar belated restitution
Proper procedural route for victims to enforce restitution rights under Marsy’s Law	Victim/state: original actions may sometimes be permitted to vindicate rights	Brasher: victims should have appealed the sentencing denial when the trial court ruled	Court: Victims who request relief in the trial court and are denied have standing to file a direct appeal; timely appeal is the adequate and preferred remedy

Key Cases Cited

State v. Danison, 823 N.E.2d 444 (Ohio 2005) (restitution is part of a felony sentence)
State v. Holdcroft, 1 N.E.3d 382 (Ohio 2013) (addressed limits on a trial court modifying sentence after prison sanction served)
State v. Henderson, 162 N.E.3d 776 (Ohio 2020) (final criminal judgments and res judicata attach in absence of appeal)
State v. Harper, 159 N.E.3d 248 (Ohio 2020) (finality and limits on collateral modification of sentences)
State ex rel. Thomas v. McGinty, 172 N.E.3d 824 (Ohio 2020) (Marsy’s Law “petition” can include appellate review; original action not always appropriate)
State ex rel. Suwalski v. Peeler, 188 N.E.3d 1048 (Ohio 2021) (victim may bring original action when no adequate remedy exists and the victim is not a party to the proceeding)
United States v. DiFrancesco, 449 U.S. 117 (U.S. 1980) (Double Jeopardy jurisprudence on defendant’s expectation of finality)
State v. Roberts, 893 N.E.2d 818 (Ohio 2008) (sentence vacatur on direct appeal allows resentencing despite interim completion of sentence)