midpage
Projects
Sign in to see your projects.
2021 Ohio 1869
Ohio Ct. App.
2021
Read the full case

Background

  • On Oct. 10, 2017 James A. Johnson III swerved across the centerline and struck a northbound school bus, injuring the bus driver and an adult passenger; Johnson tested positive for methamphetamine.
  • Johnson pled guilty Aug. 3, 2018 to one count of aggravated vehicular assault (second-degree felony).
  • At sentencing (Sept. 10–11, 2018) the trial court imposed an eight-year term (to run consecutively with another sentence) but expressly retained jurisdiction to decide restitution later.
  • Johnson filed a premature appeal (Sept. 17, 2018); this court dismissed that appeal Apr. 6, 2020 for lack of a final appealable order and remanded for the unresolved restitution issue.
  • The Ohio Victims of Crime Compensation Program (OVCCP) had paid the injured passenger $8,876.57 (decision dated Jan. 10, 2019). At a July 28, 2020 restitution hearing the trial court declined to order restitution, reasoning it could not "increase" restitution after the original sentencing.
  • The State appealed the refusal to impose restitution; Johnson cross‑appealed arguing an unreasonable delay in sentencing.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument (State) Defendant's Argument (Johnson) Held
Whether the court was required to order restitution to the OVCCP under Marsy’s Law Marsy’s Law gives victims a constitutional right to "full and timely restitution," so the trial court must order restitution to OVCCP for amounts it paid the victim. OVCCP is not the victim under Marsy’s Law; implicitly, Johnson contested any mandatory effect. Court: Marsy’s Law does not apply because OVCCP is not a "victim" under the constitutional definition; State’s Marsy argument fails.
Whether the trial court could impose restitution to OVCCP at the July 28, 2020 hearing The court had authority under R.C. 2929.18 and related statutes/case law to order restitution to a reparations fund and could do so at the remand hearing. Trial court treated the absence of a restitution figure in the Sept. 11, 2018 entry as a zero-amount sentence and argued it could not later "increase" restitution. Court: Trial court erred to the extent it believed it lacked authority; the Sept. 11, 2018 entry deferred restitution and was not a final order, so the court could have imposed restitution on remand. State’s claim on this point is sustained and the matter is remanded for reconsideration.
Whether the delay between the original sentencing entry and the Aug. 3, 2020 entry was an unreasonable sentencing delay requiring reversal State argued no unreasonable delay; sentencing steps were taken promptly and later delay was due to appellate process and proceedings necessary to resolve restitution. Johnson argued the ultimate imposition of sentence was unreasonably delayed and thus should be reversed. Court: No unreasonable delay attributable to the State. The trial court held a sentencing hearing promptly; the later delay resulted largely from Johnson’s premature appeal. Johnson’s cross‑assignment is overruled.

Key Cases Cited

  • State v. Allen, 159 Ohio St.3d 75, 2019-Ohio-4757, 147 N.E.3d 618 (Ohio 2019) (statutory authority for restitution and financial sanctions under R.C. 2929.18)
  • State v. Bartholomew, 119 Ohio St.3d 359, 2008-Ohio-4080, 894 N.E.2d 307 (Ohio 2008) (trial courts may order restitution paid to the Attorney General’s reparations fund)
  • State v. Perkins, 190 Ohio App.3d 328, 2010-Ohio-5058, 941 N.E.2d 1227 (Ohio Ct. App.) (OVCCP characterized as a reparations fund eligible to receive restitution)
  • City of Centerville v. Knab, 162 Ohio St.3d 163, 2020-Ohio-5219, 166 N.E.3d 1167 (Ohio 2020) (interpretation of "person" and "victim" under Marsy’s Law)
  • State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (Ohio 2016) (standards applied on appellate review of certain sentencing matters)
  • In re Zakov, 107 Ohio App.3d 716, 669 N.E.2d 344 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995) (failure to include restitution determination renders entry interlocutory)
  • In re Holmes, 70 Ohio App.2d 75, 434 N.E.2d 747 (Ohio Ct. App. 1980) (an incomplete sentencing entry is not a final appealable order)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Johnson
Court Name: Ohio Court of Appeals
Date Published: Jun 1, 2021
Citations: 2021 Ohio 1869; 8-20-42
Docket Number: 8-20-42
Court Abbreviation: Ohio Ct. App.
Log In