State v. Fissel, 2022 Ohio 1856

Elizabeth Fissel, controller at Hadronics, embezzled company funds over ~5.5 years by forging checks and concealing withdrawals in the books; total theft ≈ $2.2 million.
Hadronics discovered the fraud after downsizing in 2020; company brought a civil suit and pursued criminal charges.
A grand jury indicted Fissel on multiple counts; she pled guilty to one count of theft (R.C. 2913.02(A)(1)), a first-degree felony; other counts were dismissed.
At sentencing the company’s counsel (who had been its lawyer in the civil case) delivered a victim-impact statement asserting the theft amount, layoffs, and alleged asset concealment by Fissel.
The trial court imposed an eight-year prison term and $2 million restitution; Fissel appealed, raising three assignments of error but made no contemporaneous objections at sentencing (invoking plain-error review).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Reliance on hearsay/victim-impact statement at sentencing (due process)	Victim statement and counsel’s firsthand knowledge were reliable and corroborated by plea and reports; rules of evidence do not apply at sentencing.	Counsel’s statements were uncorroborated hearsay; federal standard requires indicia of reliability—lack of documents violated due process.	Ohio permits reliable hearsay at sentencing; victim counsel’s statements had corroboration (plea, PSI, exhibits); no plain error.
Failure to consider remorse under R.C. 2929.12	Court considered statutory factors and explicitly evaluated (and rejected) Fissel’s remorse; courts may judge sincerity.	Court relied on conduct during the offense and did not consider post-arrest remorse, so sentence is contrary to law.	Trial court is presumed to have considered statutory factors; it assessed remorse and reasonably found it insincere; no reversible error.
Failure to impose court costs at sentencing	Post-Joseph statutory change (R.C. 2947.23(C)) and Beasley permit the court to waive/suspend/modify costs after sentencing; no remand necessary.	Under State v. Joseph, costs must be imposed at sentencing so an indigent defendant can seek waiver.	Joseph’s requirement is superseded by statutory amendment and Beasley; court retains jurisdiction to address costs later; no error.

State v. Cook, 83 Ohio St.3d 404, 700 N.E.2d 570 (1998) (sentencing is excepted from the Rules of Evidence; reliable hearsay may be considered)
State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 759 N.E.2d 1240 (2002) (plain-error standard requires an obvious error that affects substantial rights)
State v. Joseph, 125 Ohio St.3d 76, 926 N.E.2d 278 (2010) (addressed requirement to impose costs at sentencing; later limited)
State v. Beasley, 153 Ohio St.3d 497, 108 N.E.3d 1028 (2018) (statutory amendment recognized: court retains jurisdiction to waive/suspend/modify costs after sentencing)
State v. Williams, 129 Ohio St.3d 344, 952 N.E.2d 1108 (2011) (discusses limits of evidentiary rules at sentencing)