State v. Galloway
2022 Ohio 1135
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2022Background:
- Galloway was indicted for felonious assault; he pleaded guilty to an amended charge of aggravated trespass pursuant to a negotiated plea and joint-sentencing recommendation.
- At sentencing (Feb 9, 2021) the court imposed jail (180 days, 166 suspended), one year probation, and ordered the State to submit restitution within 30 days (amount not stipulated).
- The State filed a motion for restitution on March 25, 2021; defense opposed as untimely and argued the request included restitution for a non-victim.
- The trial court entered a restitution order on October 1, 2021, directing Galloway to pay $5,992.70 (the State later conceded $768.20 was incorrectly attributed to a non-victim).
- Galloway appealed, raising three assignments: (1) trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the restitution order due to untimeliness; (2) State sought restitution for a non-victim; and (3) the restitution order was facially defective (amount/obligee).
- The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction, concluding the October 1 restitution entry was not a final appealable order under Crim.R. 32(C) and could not be combined with the February 9 judgment entry.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction to enter restitution after the State filed its motion late | State maintained the court could consider and grant restitution | Galloway argued the untimely filing deprived the court of authority to order restitution | Appeal dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction; court did not reach merits because the Oct. 1 entry is not a final appealable order under Crim.R. 32(C) |
| Whether the State sought restitution for a non-victim | State sought specified medical amounts to entities (and later conceded one amount was for a non-victim) | Galloway argued the motion sought restitution for a non-victim and should be dismissed | Not decided on merits; issue moot due to appellate dismissal |
| Whether the restitution order was facially defective (different amount than requested; no payee specified) | State argued amounts requested to particular providers | Galloway argued the order ordered a different total and failed to identify the obligee | Not decided on merits; issue moot due to appellate dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lester, 130 Ohio St.3d 303 (2011) (Crim.R. 32(C) requires a judgment of conviction to include the fact of conviction, the sentence, the judge’s signature, and the clerk’s journal entry time stamp)
- State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197 (2008) (a final appealable judgment must be contained in a single journal entry; multiple entries cannot be combined to create a final order)
- Whitaker-Merrell Co. v. Geupel Constr. Co., 29 Ohio St.2d 184 (1971) (appellate courts must dismiss appeals when no final appealable order exists)
- Ohio Bell Tel. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm. of Ohio, 64 Ohio St.3d 145 (1992) (explains de novo review is independent and without deference)