State v. Graupmann
2014 Ohio 3637
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Defendant Jordan Graupmann struck a parked car while backing out of a driveway, left the scene, and was cited for related offenses. He pled guilty to reckless operation in exchange for dismissal of other charges.
- A magistrate held a sentencing/restitution hearing where the vehicle owner presented three professional repair estimates ($2,761.27; $2,770.41; $2,950.10) and AutoTrader printouts of comparable vehicle values.
- The magistrate ordered restitution of $2,761.27 (the lowest estimate) and advised Graupmann he had 14 days to file objections; the trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision.
- Graupmann filed objections on day 19, along with a motion for leave to file out of time, asserting (for the first time) lower vehicle value evidence (NADA guide) and inability to pay; the trial court denied leave as untimely.
- On appeal, the court reviewed whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying leave to file late objections and whether the restitution award or failure to consider ability to pay warranted reversal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Graupmann) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Graupmann leave to file objections to the magistrate’s restitution order after the 14‑day deadline | Denial was proper; no good cause shown for the untimely filing and Crim.R. 19(D)(4)(e)(i) and the magistrate’s warning governed | Counsel–client miscommunication and excusable neglect justified late objections; he had viable defenses to the restitution amount | Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion; defendant failed to show good cause for late filing |
| Whether the restitution amount was unreasonable or the court erred by not considering defendant’s ability to pay | Restitution was supported by the victim’s three repair estimates and AutoTrader values; defendant offered no timely contrary evidence or request for a hearing on ability to pay | Award was excessive relative to vehicle value per NADA and photographs; court failed to assess ability to pay despite later indigency finding | Court declined review on merits because defendant waived issues by not timely objecting; no plain error shown; restitution affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Cincinnati v. Parker, 22 Ohio St.2d 209 (discretionary good‑cause review for filing deadlines)
- State v. Warner, 55 Ohio St.3d 31 (restitution must be based on record evidence)
- State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (plain error standard; invoked only in exceptional circumstances)