State v. Jones, 2013 Ohio 2616

Jones pleaded guilty to attempted engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity (3rd degree), grand theft of a motor vehicle (4th degree), and two counts of receiving stolen property (misdemeanors).
The trial court ordered restitution of $17,850.27 to victim Mike Bunt, offset by a police impound recovery of about $2,865, with the rest as part of the underlying fine.
The court treated restitution as part of the count one fine and considered a three-times gross loss multiplier for a corresponding fine under R.C. 2923.32(B)(2).
A notice of total value of recovered property was filed, but the restitution calculation was not subsequently adjusted, creating ambiguity about the final restitution and fine amounts.
Jones argued there should be a hearing on restitution, the amount should not exceed the misdemeanor cap, and the restitution should not be speculative based on the victim impact statement alone.
The appellate court remanded to determine restitution with proper credit for recovered property and clarify whether the related fine may be adjusted accordingly.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Restitution amount must be certain and within statutory limits	Jones argues restitution exceeded misdemeanor cap and was speculative	Jones contends no hearing and flawed calculation	Issue sustained; remand for proper restitution calculation and hearing
Whether restitution can exceed the misdemeanor cap when multiple offenses are involved	State asserts broader economic loss supports higher restitution	Jones contends cap limits restitution for misdemeanor	Potentially permissible; remand to clarify credit and impact on fine
Whether a hearing was required for restitution and proper calculation of credits	State asserted no hearing necessity; but record shows need for review	Jones objected to lack of hearing and authentic itemized list	Hearing required; remand to review itemized list and reconcile credits
Appropriateness of trebling the fine under R.C. 2923.32(B)(2) for an attempted offense	Treasured calculation may apply to attempted engaging in pattern of corrupt activity	Unclear whether treble fine applies to attempt	Remanded to determine whether treble fine applies to the attempted conviction or to the underlying felony

State v. Coldiron, 12th Dist. CA2008-06-062, 2009-Ohio-2105 (Ohio 2009) (restitution must be supported by competent, credible evidence and bear a reasonable relationship to actual loss)
State v. Stamper, 12th Dist. CA2009-04-115, 2010-Ohio-1939 (Ohio 2010) (restitution must bear a reasonable relationship to the actual loss)
State v. Hipsher, 12th Dist. CA2011-12-128, 2012-Ohio-3206 (Ohio 2012) (restitution not limited to the value of stolen property where multiple offenses are involved)
State v. Ratliff, 194 Ohio App.3d 202, 2011-Ohio-4173 (2d Dist.) (Ohio 2011) (restoration of restitution parameters when plea includes other counts; need clear restitution understanding at plea)