State v. Frank, 2018 Ohio 5148

Victim Carol Bosson collected 2,200–2,500 pieces of American pottery (many rare McCoy pieces) stored in the basement of her New Concord home; total missing value ≈ $32,000.
Appellant Leah Frank lived in Bosson's house as a tenant (2013–Dec 2016) under instructions not to touch or show the pottery; Bosson later discovered many pieces missing after the tenants moved out.
Investigators traced several missing pieces to Shawn Renick, who sold jars to dealers (Relics Antique Mall and others); some high-value pieces were recovered from buyer Jamie Melton and dealer Robert Lamay.
Witness testimony (Jane Doe, Renick’s acquaintance; Valerie Barker; dealer employees) placed appellant present when boxes of pottery were packed and said she directed which boxes/items to take; appellant denied stealing or directing theft.
Indictment charged Frank and Renick with felony theft (> $7,500). Trials were severed; jury convicted Frank of misdemeanor theft (< $7,500). She was sentenced to 6 months with all but 30 days suspended conditioned on community control and ordered to pay $20,960 restitution allocated among Bosson, Melton, and Lamay.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether conviction was against manifest weight of the evidence	State: testimony and circumstantial evidence show Frank aided/abetted theft (Doe and Barker testified Frank boxed/pointed out items; stolen pieces traced to Renick’s sales).	Frank: no evidence she took, assisted, or benefited; witness inconsistencies undermine verdict.	Court: Affirmed—jury credibility determinations upheld; evidence (direct and circumstantial) supports conviction.
Whether 30‑day jail term (part of misdemeanor sentence) was an abuse of discretion	State: sentence falls within statutory range and court considered PSR and victim impact.	Frank: sentence excessive and disproportionate compared to co-defendant Renick’s outcome.	Court: Affirmed—sentence within statutory range; no abuse of discretion; consistency argument insufficient.
Whether restitution of $20,960 was improper given misdemeanor conviction (< $7,500)	State: restitution may reflect actual economic loss and is supported by receipts and testimony; restitution not limited by degree of offense.	Frank: restitution amounts exceed theft degree and include acts jury did not find she committed.	Court: Affirmed—restitution supported by competent credible evidence and statute; amount corresponds to victims’ economic loss.

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (standard for manifest-weight review)
State v. Yarbrough, 95 Ohio St.3d 227 (Ohio 2002) (deference to trier of fact on credibility)
State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (Ohio 1967) (appellate deference to factfinder on witness credibility)
State v. Awan, 22 Ohio St.3d 120 (Ohio 1986) (finder of fact may accept or reject witness testimony)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse of discretion standard)
State v. Lalain, 136 Ohio St.3d 248 (Ohio 2013) (restitution amount not limited by degree of theft; must match economic loss)