State v. Leach, 2017 Ohio 8420

Joshua D. Leach was indicted for fourth-degree felony receiving stolen property based on 39 checks his sister, an office manager, allegedly forged and issued to him. The bill of particulars alleged Leach received approximately $81,600.
Leach pleaded guilty; the written plea agreement said only “Restitution to Springfield Smiles.” At plea the prosecutor recited the bill of particulars facts and said there would be restitution.
A presentence investigation (PSI) reported the victim’s total economic loss as $123,324.88 and noted the victim’s insurer reimbursed $70,000, leaving $53,324.88 out-of-pocket.
At sentencing the trial court ordered restitution of $123,324.88. Defense counsel objected, asserting the parties had agreed to a different restitution figure; the court suggested filing a motion to revisit the issue.
On appeal the State conceded the trial court erred and requested modification of restitution to $81,600 (the amount of checks cashed by Leach). The appellate court agreed an error occurred but declined to simply modify the amount.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred in ordering $123,324.88 restitution	State concedes amount exceeds loss attributable to Leach and asks modification to $81,600	Leach objected to court’s higher restitution and disputed amount	Court: Trial court erred; restitution exceeded loss causally attributable to Leach and must be corrected
Whether appellate court may modify restitution to $81,600	State asks the court to modify to $81,600	Implied: Leach relies on plea facts but did not expressly agree to $81,600 restitution	Court: Cannot modify to $81,600 because plea agreement and proceedings did not show express agreement to that restitution amount; remand required for determination of actual loss and offsets
Whether insurer reimbursement must offset restitution	State/record did not establish allocation of insurer’s $70,000 reimbursement	Leach argued restitution should reflect agreed amount and objections	Court: Must account for insurance payments; restitution cannot result in double recovery and trial court must determine proper offsets on remand
Remedy for erroneous restitution order	State proposed simple modification	Leach preserved objection and trial court invited further motion	Court: Reverse and remand for resentencing on restitution only to determine actual economic loss caused by Leach and any offsets

State v. Lalain, 136 Ohio St.3d 248, 994 N.E.2d 423 (2013) (restitution limited to victim’s actual economic loss causally attributable to offense)
State v. Williams, 34 Ohio App.3d 33, 516 N.E.2d 1270 (1987) (court abuses discretion when restitution lacks reasonable relationship to actual financial loss)