State v. Little
2019 Ohio 4488
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Louisha Little, a nurse’s aide, accessed a quadriplegic patient Yvette Lucas’s debit card and PIN and withdrew $853 from the patient’s joint account without permission.
- Lucas later died; her father notified the court that KeyBank had reimbursed the $853 to the joint account.
- Little was indicted for misuse of a credit card (victim alleged to be an elderly or disabled person) and entered a guilty plea as part of a plea submission.
- The trial court said it would accept the plea only if Little (1) paid $853 restitution to KeyBank and (2) agreed not to work in a health‑care “facility.” The written judgment used the broader term “health care industry.”
- The court sentenced Little to two years community control with restitution to KeyBank and the employment restriction; Little appealed, challenging both conditions.
- The First District affirmed, holding Little forfeited challenges by pleading guilty and that the restitution and facility‑employment condition were permissible; it remanded for a nunc pro tunc entry correcting “industry” to “facility.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could order restitution payable to KeyBank | Restitution was enforceable because Little agreed to pay KeyBank as a condition of her plea | A bank that reimburses a customer is not a victim; restitution to the bank is contrary to law | Court: No plain error; Little knowingly agreed to pay KeyBank as plea condition and forfeited objection |
| Whether banning Little from working in health‑care settings was lawful | The restriction is reasonably related to rehabilitation and preventing future access to vulnerable victims | The condition is overly broad and unduly restricts ability to earn a living | Court: The hearing imposed a ban on working in a health‑care facility (not industry); condition reasonably relates to offense and is not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385 (Ohio 2015) (a defendant forfeits sentencing challenges unless plain error is shown)
- State v. Aguirre, 144 Ohio St.3d 179 (Ohio 2014) (restitution may be ordered only to the victim of the offense)
- State v. Talty, 103 Ohio St.3d 177 (Ohio 2004) (standards for evaluating reasonableness of community‑control conditions)
- State v. Harris, 46 N.E.3d 198 (Ohio 2015) (a bank that reimburses a customer is not a victim; but third‑party restitution can be enforced if defendant agrees as plea condition)