State v. Isaacs
2017 Ohio 7637
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In Oct. 2016 Jeremiah Isaacs stole Mark Ballard’s vehicle, assaulted Ballard, damaged Ballard’s home, and methamphetamine was found in the vehicle.
- Isaacs was indicted for robbery, grand theft (motor vehicle), burglary, and violating a protection order while committing a felony; he pled guilty to robbery and violating a protection order and agreed to pay restitution on all charged counts.
- The trial court sentenced Isaacs to two years’ imprisonment and held a contested restitution hearing.
- Victim Ballard testified about damaged household items, vehicle damage, and three nights’ hotel lodging ($70/night). He identified homeowner’s deductible ($1,032) and automobile insurance deductible ($1,000) but did not provide repair/replacement costs for certain vehicle upholstery and molding.
- The trial court ordered $2,210 restitution: $1,000 homeowner deductible, $1,000 auto deductible, and $210 lodging.
- On appeal the court reviewed whether the restitution award was supported by the record and contrary to law under R.C. 2929.18(A)(1) and the standard in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether restitution amount bears a reasonable relation to victim’s actual economic loss | State argued restitution may be based on victim’s testimony and recommended amounts, and trial court properly awarded deductibles and lodging based on Ballard’s testimony | Isaacs argued evidence did not support the full $2,210 award, particularly vehicle and household damage amounts | Court affirmed most of the award but found part unsupported and modified restitution to $1,210 (reversed as to unsupported vehicle upholstery/molding repairs) |
| Whether trial court may base restitution on insurance deductibles | State relied on Ballard’s testimony about deductibles as economic loss | Isaacs argued deductibles lacked sufficient linkage to offense-specific loss | Court upheld $1,000 homeowner and $1,000 auto deductible awards as supported by testimony |
| Sufficiency of evidence for vehicle upholstery/molding repair costs | State pointed to testimony that vehicle had damage and an unidentified stain | Isaacs argued no evidence of repair or replacement costs for seat fabric/molding | Court found absence of cost testimony for those specific repairs; that portion of order was contrary to law |
| Standard of appellate review for restitution orders | State urged deference to trial court’s credibility findings; appellate review limited to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) | Isaacs argued the order was contrary to law and should be reduced | Court applied R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) and modified order where record lacked evidence by clear and convincing standard |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Colon, 185 Ohio App.3d 671 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010) (trial court must conduct a restitution hearing if restitution is contested)
- State v. Johnson, 164 Ohio App.3d 792 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005) (victim bears burden to prove restitution by a preponderance of the evidence)