State v. Furness
2014 Ohio 414
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Furness pleaded guilty to receiving stolen property (a felony of the fifth degree) for conduct dated Oct 27, 2012.
- Judgment sentenced Furness to 10 months in prison, to run concurrent with a Lake County sentence, and ordered restitution of $2,946.
- The restitution amount reflected sums from insurance and a $1,000 deductible.
- R.C. 2929.13(B)(1)(a) was amended in 2013; the version in effect at Furness’s offense did not mandate imprisonment where community control was available.
- The court vacated Furness’s sentence and remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion, sustaining the ex post facto challenge to applying the amended statute.
- The restitution order was upheld as properly calculated based on stipulation and evidence presented at sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ex post facto applying amended 2929.13 | Furness</br> Johnson interpretation requires prison only if applicable; ex post facto violated. | Amended statute (2013) applies retroactively to Furness’s case. | First assignment sustained; trial court erred in applying amended statute. |
| Restitution amount vs. actual loss | Stipulated amount properly reflects victim’s losses. | Restitution exceeded actual economic loss. | Second assignment overruled; restitution supported by stipulation. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel preserved issues; ineffective assistance claims survive review. | No deficiency shown in counsel’s performance. | Third assignment overruled; moot given resolution of first issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Johnson, 2013-Ohio-575 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98245 (Ohio 2013)) (interprets 2929.13(B)(1)(a) as applied to this case)
- State v. Coleman, 2013-Ohio-1658 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 98557 & 98558 (Ohio 2013)) (illustrates application of pre-amendment statute when multiple offenses)
- State v. Walls, 96 Ohio St.3d 447 (2002-Ohio-5059) (ex post facto standards for retroactive punishment changes)
- Beazell v. Ohio, 269 U.S. 167 ((1925)) (jurisprudence on ex post facto principles)
- Lindsey v. Washington, 301 U.S. 397 ((1937)) (aid in defining retroactivity and punishment changes)
- State v. Glaude, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 73757 ((1999)) (ex post facto consideration in Ohio appellate context)
- State v. McRae, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 96253 ((2011)) (restitution must reflect actual loss)