State v. Johnson, 2014 Ohio 4826

Brandon D. Johnson pled guilty to one count of receiving stolen property after causing an accident in a stolen vehicle.
At sentencing the state sought $6,256.53 in restitution to be paid to the vehicle owner’s insurance company for damage payments.
Johnson objected; the trial court nevertheless ordered restitution to the insurer and journalized that order.
Johnson appealed solely arguing the court erred by ordering restitution to the insurance company.
The appellate court reviewed the proper payee question de novo and the restitution-order generally for abuse of discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court may order restitution to an insurer under R.C. 2929.18(A)(1)	Insurer is a victim or an acceptable third-party payee (an agency) and restitution to it is not expressly prohibited; Bartholomew and other decisions permit third-party payees in some circumstances	Restitution must be paid only to one of the four statutorily enumerated payees (victim, county adult probation dept., clerk of courts, or another agency designated by the court); insurer here does not fit those categories	Reversed the portion of sentence ordering restitution to the insurance company — insurer is not an authorized payee under R.C. 2929.18(A)(1) in these circumstances

State v. Bartholomew, 119 Ohio St.3d 359 (Ohio 2008) (Supreme Court held a reparations fund qualified as an "agency designated by the court" under R.C. 2929.18(A)(1))
State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365 (Ohio 2010) (discussed limits on appeal of sentences that are part of agreed dispositions)
State v. Sufronko, 105 Ohio App.3d 504 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995) (explaining de novo review of statutory interpretation and appellate review standards)