State v. Getz
2016 Ohio 3397
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- James D. Getz was convicted in July 2013 of receiving stolen property after stripping parts from a 1966 Chevrolet Nova owned by Jimmie Powell to use on another Nova he owned.
- At sentencing on September 4, 2013 the trial court ordered five years community control, 90 days in jail, and $14,000 restitution to Powell; the judgment entry was filed September 5, 2013.
- On November 13, 2013 the court ordered certain seized parts released to Powell and other items released to Getz; that order did not expressly address Powell’s Nova.
- Getz did not appeal the September 2013 restitution order or the November 2013 property-release order.
- More than 14 months after sentencing, on November 24, 2014, Getz moved for a restitution hearing, arguing the $14,000 exceeded Powell’s loss because parts (allegedly from Getz’s second Nova) had been returned to Powell.
- The trial court denied the motion, concluding it lacked jurisdiction to reconsider a final, appealable restitution order; the court of appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Getz) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by denying a post‑sentencing restitution hearing | Trial: restitution order (Sept. 5, 2013) was a final appealable judgment; court lacked authority to reopen it after the appeal period expired | Getz: R.C. 2929.18(A)(1) entitles a defendant to a restitution hearing whenever the amount is disputed; court retains jurisdiction to hold such a hearing | Court: Denial was proper — the restitution entry fixed a definite sum, was final and appealable, and the court had no continuing jurisdiction to reopen it |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Danison, 105 Ohio St.3d 127 (discusses that restitution is part of the sentence and is a final appealable order)
- State v. Lalain, 136 Ohio St.3d 248 (trial court must determine restitution at sentencing; hearing required only if amount is disputed at that time)
- State ex rel. Hansen v. Reed, 63 Ohio St.3d 597 (trial court lacks authority to reconsider its valid final criminal judgment)
- State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (res judicata bars relitigation of issues that could have been raised on direct appeal)
- State v. Purnell, 171 Ohio App.3d 466 (no statutory authority for trial court to exercise continuing jurisdiction to modify restitution after sentencing)
- State v. Cockerman, 118 Ohio App.3d 767 (discusses limits on modifying restitution once a definite sum is ordered)