State v. Jones, 2019 Ohio 4938

In February 2019 Jones and a co-defendant forced open a Wal‑Mart cage, stole nine iPads, and damaged the cage; police located the iPads in Jones’s vehicle after a high‑speed pursuit stopped by spike strips.
Jones was indicted on failure to comply with an officer, theft, and vandalism; he pleaded guilty to failure to comply pursuant to a plea agreement dismissing the other charges.
At sentencing the court imposed 24 months’ imprisonment (within the statutory 36‑month exposure) and ordered restitution to Wal‑Mart for $7,152.22 (the victim’s claimed economic loss reflected in the presentence report).
Jones appealed, raising three issues: (1) the 24‑month sentence was an abuse of discretion; (2) trial counsel was ineffective for not requesting a separate restitution hearing; and (3) the restitution order lacked competent, credible evidence.
The trial court repeatedly asked whether Jones wished to contest restitution; defense counsel and Jones declined to contest and Jones stated he was willing and able to pay.
The appellate court affirmed: it found sentencing supported by the record, no deficient or prejudicial counsel performance, and restitution properly based on victim/presentence information with no plain error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 24‑month sentence was abuse of discretion	State: sentence appropriate given seriousness, recidivism, and within statutory range	Jones: court did not properly balance R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 factors; sentence excessive	Affirmed — sentence within statutory range and supported by competent, credible evidence; no clear and convincing showing of error
Whether counsel was ineffective for not requesting separate restitution hearing	State: counsel’s conduct reflected defendant’s informed choice; no deficient performance or prejudice	Jones: counsel should have requested a separate hearing to challenge restitution	Denied — counsel acted per Jones’s wishes; tactical decision; no prejudice shown under Strickland
Whether restitution ($7,152.22) lacked competent, credible evidence	State: restitution may be based on victim’s claim and presentence report; defendant waived objection by not requesting hearing	Jones: amount not proven to reasonable degree of certainty as required by R.C. 2929.18	Affirmed — Jones failed to object at sentencing (waived all but plain error); amount based on victim/presentence information; no plain error shown

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes two‑prong deficient‑performance and prejudice test for ineffective assistance)
State v. McGowan, 147 Ohio St.3d 166 (2016) (appellate authority to modify sentence only on clear and convincing evidence that sentence is contrary to law or unsupported by the record)
State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016) (defines clear and convincing evidence standard in sentencing review)
State v. Gondor, 112 Ohio St.3d 377 (2006) (discusses counsel performance and when errors constitute ineffective assistance)
State v. Lalain, 136 Ohio St.3d 248 (2013) (restitution authorized under R.C. 2929.18 and may be based on victim or presentence report)
State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21 (2002) (describes plain‑error framework under Crim.R. 52(B))
State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (1978) (standard for determining plain error)