State v. Jackson
2013 Ohio 3136
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- On June 16, 2010, Leonardo Jackson entered a VA hospital room and stole a bag from paraplegic veteran Andrew Diak containing a wallet, $10, IDs, a credit card, and a cell phone.
- Jackson was indicted for burglary (with specifications) and theft of a credit card; he later pled guilty to one count of burglary (second-degree felony) pursuant to a plea agreement that expressly included $10 restitution. Other charges/specifications were dismissed.
- At sentencing the court reviewed Jackson’s extensive prior criminal history and drug dependence, heard victim and defense statements, and found rehabilitation unlikely. The court imposed a seven-year prison term concurrent with an Indiana sentence.
- The court ordered $205 in restitution ($10 cash, $150 for cell phone, $30 for wallet, $15 for bag); values were taken from the police report except the court assigned $30 to the wallet.
- Jackson appealed, arguing (1) the trial court exceeded the restitution agreed in the plea and lacked evidence of value and ability to pay, and (2) the seven-year sentence was excessive and the court failed properly to apply R.C. 2929.12 mitigating factors.
- The appellate court affirmed, finding restitution authorized as loss proximately caused by the burglary, no plain error in valuation or failure to consider ability to pay, and that the sentence was not clearly and convincingly contrary to law under R.C. 2953.08(G).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to order restitution for items beyond the $10 in plea | State: Restitution may cover victim’s economic loss proximately caused by the convicted offense; values supported by police report | Jackson: Plea covered only $10; trial court lacked authority to order restitution for items he did not plead to; valuation lacking | Court: Restitution for items taken in burglary authorized under R.C. 2929.18(A)(1); Jackson invited restitution by offering to pay and failed to object at sentencing, so waived plain error |
| Sufficiency of evidence for restitution values | State: Police report supplied item values; court may rely on estimates/receipts | Jackson: No competent evidence for some item values (wallet) | Court: Values for phone and bag matched police report; court assigned $30 for wallet without objection — not plain error or manifest miscarriage of justice |
| Trial court’s consideration of defendant’s ability to pay restitution | State: Court complied with sentencing procedure; no objection below | Jackson: Court failed to consider ability to pay as required by R.C. 2929.19(B)(5) | Court: Waived absent objection; even if error, $205 restitution not a manifest miscarriage of justice |
| Excessiveness of seven-year sentence / consideration of R.C. 2929.12 factors | State: Sentence falls within statutory range and court considered seriousness and recidivism factors | Jackson: Court failed to adequately weigh mitigating factors (treatment, education, military service); sentence excessive | Court: Under R.C. 2953.08(G) sentence not clearly and convincingly contrary to law; record shows court considered R.C. 2929.12 and relied on extensive priors and victim’s vulnerability to justify near-maximum term |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Marbury, 104 Ohio App.3d 179 (Eighth Dist. 1995) (appellate waiver of restitution objections absent trial objection)
- State v. Hartman, 93 Ohio St.3d 274 (Ohio 2001) (plain error three-prong framework and appellate relief discretion)
- State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21 (Ohio 2002) (plain-error doctrine to be applied with utmost caution)
- State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (Ohio 1978) (plain-error standard guidance)
- State v. Warner, 55 Ohio St.3d 31 (Ohio 1990) (competent, credible evidence required to establish restitution amount)
- State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (Ohio 2008) (previously used appellate standard for felony-sentence review; appellate court here follows R.C. 2953.08(G) instead)