2022 Ohio 659
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Defendant Robert W. Laudermilk pleaded no contest to one count of criminal damaging (2nd-degree misdemeanor) as part of a global plea resolving two separate domestic-violence complaints; plea included agreement to pay restitution for the August 29, 2020 incident and to undergo a diagnostic assessment.
- At sentencing the court suspended jail time, imposed fines/costs, and directed the Portage County Adult Probation Department (APD) to preliminarily determine whether restitution was owed given marital/insurance issues; a restitution hearing was set.
- At the restitution hearing the victim produced medical bills and a credit-card statement showing an $800 medical payment; APD had reported some bills lacked receipts; defense disputed amount but agreed on a gross figure initially presented.
- The trial court found some payments (about $209.66) were likely marital funds (deducted those) and ordered restitution of $1,785.53 for unreimbursed medical expenses to be paid within 120 days.
- Laudermilk appealed pro se raising six assignments of error (challenge to the charging language, APD vs court role, victim cooperation and prior settlement, counsel effectiveness, and responsibility for marital-account payments) but failed to comply with App.R. 16 and offered no legal authority; the appellate court reviewed the merits anyway.
- The Eleventh District affirmed: restitution was part of the plea bargain, APD’s role was investigatory, the restitution award was supported by competent, credible evidence, and ineffective-assistance allegations failed.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Laudermilk's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of charging/restitution after plea | Plea agreement allowed dismissal of DV counts and no-contest to criminal damaging with restitution for the Aug. 29 incident | Charge was to property, not person; cannot be forced to pay for victim’s bodily injuries | Court: Plea explicitly included restitution for victim’s injuries from the Aug. 29 incident; defendant may not attack agreed restitution on appeal |
| APD role vs. court hearing | APD was ordered to gather info; court retains authority to impose and determine restitution and must hold hearing if disputed | Court improperly delegated restitution determination to APD then nonetheless held a hearing | Court: APD’s role was investigatory/preliminary; statute permits restitution to be made to APD but final determination and hearing are court functions; no error |
| Sufficiency/credibility of evidence for restitution (insurance, marital funds, separation agreement) | Victim’s testimony, medical bills, and credit-card statement constitute competent, credible evidence of unreimbursed loss; court properly offset marital-paid amounts | Victim produced documents late; some payments came from marital funds or were addressed in separation agreement | Court: Evidence supported amount to reasonable degree of certainty; court appropriately deducted likely marital payments; restitution award not an abuse of discretion |
| Ineffective assistance for limited cross-examination | Defense counsel’s performance fell within reasonable strategic choices; no showing of deficient performance or prejudice | Counsel failed to adequately cross-examine victim at restitution hearing | Court: No demonstrable error in counsel’s performance and no prejudice shown; Strickland standard not met |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 135 (Ohio 1989) (standards for proving ineffective assistance in Ohio)
- State v. Smith, 17 Ohio St.3d 98 (Ohio 1985) (presumption of competency for licensed attorneys)
- State v. Iacona, 93 Ohio St.3d 83 (Ohio 2001) (counsel performance must fall below objective standard and prejudice shown)