State v. LeGrant
2014 Ohio 5803
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Michael D. LeGrant pled guilty to two counts of aggravated arson after setting a fire in an apartment building that injured residents and damaged the building.
- At sentencing the court relied on the PSI, five victim-impact statements, a letter from the insurer, and an undated/unverified estimate from the property owner.
- The court ordered restitution of $80,278 to the property owner (Trent Grove) and $2,880.65 to victim Candise Miller; LeGrant did not object at the hearing.
- The record lacked testimony or documentary proof establishing (with reasonable certainty) the amount of uninsured loss or what loss was covered by insurance; one reimbursed item (rental deposit) was nonetheless included in Miller’s restitution.
- The trial court imposed consecutive sentences after finding at the sentencing hearing that LeGrant acted with separate animus as to multiple victims/properties, but did not recite the required statutory consecutive-sentencing findings in its written entry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of restitution order | State relied on PSI documents and victim estimates to justify restitution amounts | LeGrant argued restitution amounts lacked competent, credible evidence and included reimbursed losses; court failed to hold restitution hearing | Reversed restitution award; remanded for hearing because record lacked competent evidence of actual uninsured losses and included reimbursed item |
| Consideration of ability to pay | State: court considered PSI and statements regarding defendant's background | LeGrant argued court failed to consider present/future ability to pay before imposing restitution | Court did consider ability to pay via PSI and hearing statements; no reversal on this point |
| Merger of allied offenses (two arson counts) | State: multiple victims/properties and separate animus justify separate convictions | LeGrant: single fire should merge the two aggravated-arson convictions | No merger; offenses did not merge because court found separate animus and multiple victims established distinct harms |
| Consecutive-sentencing findings in entry | State: had made oral findings at sentencing supporting consecutive terms | LeGrant: written judgment failed to include statutory findings required for consecutive sentences | Consecutive sentences upheld, but trial court must issue nunc pro tunc entry adding the statutory findings |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Williams, 34 Ohio App.3d 33 (2d Dist.) (amount of restitution must be established with reasonable certainty)
- State v. Ratliff, 194 Ohio App.3d 202 (2d Dist.) (failure to object to restitution at trial waives all but plain error)
- State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21 (Ohio) (plain-error review standard articulated)
- State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 (Ohio) (three-prong allied-offenses/merger test)
- State v. Franklin, 97 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio) (multiple victims/properties can justify separate arson convictions)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (Ohio) (oral consecutive-sentence findings must be incorporated in the sentencing entry)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S.) (ineffective-assistance-of-counsel standard)