State v. Garrett
2013 Ohio 3035
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Garrett pled guilty to two counts of aggravated robbery with firearm specifications; sentenced to 16 years, with other charges dismissed and sentences to run concurrently to a 30-years-to-life term in a related case.
- The court ordered restitution totals of $540 to Comfort Suites, $170 to Greg Edwards, $168 to BP Gas Station, and $396 to Teresa Lakins, based on a purported future ability to pay.
- A PSI in 2010 CR 4099/2 indicated Garrett had no verifiable employment history, minimal education (eleventh grade), health good, and substantial prior criminal history, with child support arrears and no assets.
- Defense objected to the restitution order on the basis of Garrett’s present or future ability to pay given a life sentence; the court proceeded to impose restitution after noting speculative possibilities of future earnings.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the restitution order, holding the trial court failed to demonstrate a present or future ability to pay under R.C. 2929.19(B)(5); otherwise, the conviction and other aspects remained affirmed.
- Restitution was reversed and vacated; the remainder of the judgment, including the conviction, was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether restitution was proper given Garrett’s life sentence | Garrett argues the court erred imposing restitution with no present or future ability to pay. | State argues possible prison wages or future opportunities could enable payment, so restitution is permissible. | Restitution reversed; not shown present/future ability to pay. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Culver, 160 Ohio App.3d 172 (2005-Ohio-1359) (court may infer ability to pay from PSI; need not state explicit factors)
- State v. Willis, 2012-Ohio-294 (2d Dist. Montgomery No. 24477) (restitution reversal where future ability to pay was speculative)
- State v. Frock, 2007-Ohio-1026 (2d Dist. Clark No. 2004 CA 76) (insufficient record on ability to pay restitution given long sentence)
- State v. Parker, 2004-Ohio-1313 (Champaign App. No. 03CA0017) (necessity of considering present ability to pay)
- State v. Ratliff, 194 Ohio App.3d 202 (2011-Ohio-2313) (PSI as vehicle to assess present/future ability to pay)