State v. Conte, 2019 Ohio 4333

Ronald Conte was convicted of multiple felonies for stealing $558,100.02 from clients and sentenced to 59 months; after 21 months he was granted judicial release and placed on community control with restitution obligations.
Restitution was ordered at $2,500/month then reduced to $1,500/month; Conte made partial payments but failed to fully comply and was charged with community-control violations leading to revocation and reimposition of his prison term.
On initial appeal this Court remanded because the trial court failed to make the Bearden willfulness findings and misstated the relevant standard (focusing on ability rather than willfulness).
On remand the trial court held an evidentiary hearing, considered prior and new exhibits (including Conte’s 2017 W-2 and spouse affidavit), and found Conte willfully refused to make bona fide efforts to pay restitution (citing nonessential spending, inconsistent income claims, and lack of proof about a South Carolina property sale).
The trial court revoked community control and reimposed the suspended sentence; Conte appealed again arguing the underpayments were not willful and that reimposition violated his constitutional rights.
The Ninth District affirmed, finding the trial court complied with Bearden, its willfulness determination was supported by the record, and the sentence reimposition was not an abuse of discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether revocation was an abuse of discretion because underpayments were not willful	Conte: failure to pay was not willful; financial circumstances show inability to pay	State: trial court found willfulness based on evidence of nonessential spending and lack of bona fide efforts	Held: No abuse of discretion; trial court properly found willfulness under Bearden and its findings were supported
Whether reimposition of prison term violated federal/Ohio constitutional rights	Conte: reimposition violated due process because Bearden was not satisfied and alternatives were not considered	State: reimposition constitutional because court found willfulness and thus need not evaluate alternatives	Held: No constitutional violation; claim depends on Bearden error which the court found cured on remand

Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983) (when failure to pay restitution is the violation, court must inquire into reasons; imprisonment only if defendant willfully refused or made no bona fide effort, or if alternatives inadequate)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard defined as unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable)
Pons v. Ohio State Med. Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 619 (1993) (appellate courts must not substitute their judgment for trial court on discretionary matters)
State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151 (1980) (discussion of abuse-of-discretion review standard)