State v. Eames, 2024 Ohio 183

Don Wayne Eames, Jr. was indicted in two Wood County, Ohio criminal cases with a total of 33 theft-related charges, including grand theft, petty theft, identity fraud, and theft.
Eames entered a plea agreement, pleading guilty to 32 charges and agreeing to pay restitution to 16 of 23 victims, with the grand theft charge dismissed and the state not opposing intervention in lieu of conviction (“ILC”).
The trial court accepted the agreement, placed Eames on ILC supervision, stayed proceedings, and imposed restitution as part of the conditions.
After Eames violated his ILC conditions twice, the court terminated ILC, found Eames guilty on all 32 counts, sentenced him to ten months in prison (concurrent), and ordered restitution.
There was a discrepancy between the restitution ordered in open court for one case and the amount in the written judgment entry, leading to the appeal.

Issue	Eames's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether sentencing to prison was error	Sentence unsupported by record; factors not properly weighed	Appellate court cannot review trial court’s discretion on factors under current law	Court cannot review under Jones & Toles
Whether restitution order was erroneous	Amount in entry differed from amount stated at hearing; ability to pay not considered	Eames stipulated to amounts; court not required to assess ability to pay for stipulated restitution	Discrepancy was harmless error; no prejudice

State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242 (appellate courts cannot reweigh trial court’s application of sentencing factors)
State v. Toles, 166 Ohio St.3d 397 (appellate review of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 limited)
State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365 (jointly recommended sentences not appealable if authorized by law)
State v. Lalain, 136 Ohio St.3d 248 (court's restitution order is discretionary but must follow statutory mandates)