State v. Hewitt, 2015 Ohio 5489

Hewitt arraigned Aug 25, 2014 in municipal court for possessing cocaine; case bound over to common pleas.
Oct 22, 2014, information filed charging one count of possessing cocaine (<5 grams) under R.C. 2925.11(A)(C)(4)(a).
Hewitt initially pled not guilty but later pled no contest as part of a plea agreement; sentencing set for Feb 18, 2015.
At sentencing, court imposed ten-month prison term, six-month license suspension, and $125 restitution to Piqua Police Department for MVRCL drug testing costs.
Hewitt appeals raising two assignments of error: (1) sentence constitutes an abuse of discretion; (2) restitution to a law-enforcement agency was improper without his consent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Restitution to law enforcement; proper under statute.	Moody and Payne prohibit restitution to government bodies without consent.	Hewitt contends restitution to police department is improper unless authorized.	Restitution proper under RC 2925.511; not an abuse of discretion.
Sentence within statutory range and properly reasoned.	Court properly weighed 2929.12 factors; sentence not unreasonable.	Sentence is an abuse of discretion due to improper factor weighing.	No abuse of discretion; ten-month term within range and supported by factors.

State v. Moody, 2013-Ohio-2234 (2d Dist. Greene No. 2011-CA-29 (Ohio 2013)) (restitution to government not allowed absent consent or statutory authorization)
State v. Payne, 2015-Ohio-698 (2d Dist. Clark No. 2014-CA-21 (Ohio 2015)) (restitution to sheriff’s department for drug-purchase costs improper absent consent/authorization)
State v. Jones, 2010-Ohio-2704 (7th Dist. Jefferson Nos. 08 JE 20, 08 JE 29) (government as victim not recoverable for investigative costs)
State v. Samuels, 2003-Ohio-6106 (4th Dist. Washington No. 03CA8) (police expense not compensable as victim under restitution statute)
State v. Kalish, 2008-Ohio-4912 (Ohio Supreme Court 2008) (analysis of sentencing factors and lawful computation of prison terms)