State v. Ford, 2013 Ohio 1768

Ford and Helderlein stole Bauman’s coin and stamp collection while Bauman was in the hospital; Pools later returned some items after learning of the theft.
Pools had purchased some items from Ford and later identified Ford as the seller; they paid Ford a total of $12,425.
Ford pled guilty to theft from the disabled (a felony) under an agreement that restitution would reflect the Lincolnway Stamps payments; the plea hearing indicated approximately $10,000 as the restitution figure.
The trial court ordered restitution of $64,000 to Bauman and $12,425 to Lincolnway Stamps, based on unrecovered items and the Pools’ payments.
On appeal, this Court previously vacated the restitution order as plain error for exceeding statutory limits and remanded for proceedings consistent with that conclusion.
After remand, the trial court issued a new entry reducing restitution to $24,999.99 total, allocated pro rata between Bauman and Lincolnway Stamps, prompting another appeal by Ford.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Restitution exceeding statutory limits	Ford contends restitution exceeded the statutory cap for a third-degree felony.	Ford asserts the plea agreement supports restitution only for Lincolnway receipts and not Bauman’s unrecovered items.	Remand required; restitution must be reconsidered consistent with the plea and statutory limits.
Deviating from the plea agreement without informing Ford	Ford relies on the plea agreement and the prosecutor’s statements at plea to limit restitution.	Ford argues the court did not inform him of any deviation from the plea during sentencing.	Remand required; proper notice or opportunity to withdraw/renegotiate plea is necessary.
Support for unrecovered item value ($64,000)	The probation report or record supports a $64,000 unrecovered-item value for restitution.	There is no record evidence identifying the unrecovered-item value; the $64,000 figure is not supported by the record.	Remand required; restitution must be based on record-supported values.

In re J.C., 186 Ohio App.3d 243 (2010-Ohio-637) (appellate review limited to record; cannot rely on proceedings not in record)