State v. Lowe, 2013 Ohio 4224

Kevin Lowe pleaded guilty to two counts of receiving stolen property and two counts of misuse of credit cards.
The trial court sentenced Lowe to three years of community control and ordered restitution "in the amount to be determined by the probation department."
Lowe appealed, arguing the trial court erred by failing to set a definite restitution amount at sentencing and by delegating that determination to probation.
Ohio law (R.C. 2929.18(A)(1)) treats restitution as part of the sentence and requires the trial court to determine the restitution amount at sentencing.
The First District previously held in Purnell and Wilson that sentencing courts may not impose indeterminate restitution amounts or delegate the determination to probation.
The sentencing entry here contained no indication the court intended further proceedings to fix restitution, distinguishing it from cases where the court explicitly deferred the restitution determination.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by ordering restitution "to be determined by the probation department" instead of fixing an amount at sentencing	State contended the restitution order as part of the sentence was valid	Lowe argued the court must set a definite restitution amount at sentencing and cannot delegate that task to probation	Court held the trial court erred; restitution amount must be fixed by the court at sentencing and cannot be delegated to probation

State v. Danison, 105 Ohio St.3d 127 (2005) (restitution is part of sentence and a final order)
State v. Purnell, 171 Ohio App.3d 446 (1st Dist. 2006) (trial court must determine restitution amount at sentencing; cannot retain continuing jurisdiction to modify amount)
In re Holmes, 70 Ohio App.2d 75 (1st Dist. 1980) (juvenile order not final where record shows court contemplated further proceedings)
State v. Threatt, 108 Ohio St.3d 277 (2006) (discusses finality and sentencing entry clarity)