State v. Martin
2013 Ohio 2441
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Martin was convicted of arson counts and the trial court ordered restitution to the fire department and State Farm Insurance.
- Count three (intent to defraud) was dismissed after the jury hung on it; counts one and two were merged for sentencing.
- Martin received a five-year sentence and a restitution order including $85,000 to State Farm.
- Martin appealed and obtained relief under App.R. 26(B) to challenge restitution only; the rest of the judgment was not challenged.
- The sole issue on reopen was whether restitution to State Farm was improper because State Farm was not the direct victim.
- Ohio law (R.C. 2929.18(A)(1)) limits restitution to victims or specified third parties; an amendment narrowed eligible payees to actual victims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Restitution to nonvictim third party | Martin ( State Farm) not a crime victim; restitution improper. | State Farm suffered collateral loss and is a proper recipient under the statute as amended. | Restitution to State Farm vacated; remanded to vacate. |
| Allied offenses sentencing | Consolidation/eligibility; proper under law. | Error in sentencing on allied offenses of similar import. | Overruled; not challenged on appeal following reopening. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bartholomew, 119 Ohio St.3d 359 (2008-Ohio-4080) (defines eligible restitution payees under R.C. 2929.18(A)(1))
- State v. Berlinger, 194 Ohio App.3d 145 (2011-Ohio-2223) (restitution eligibility under statute; limits of third-party recovery)
- State v. Hess, 2d Dist. No. 24453 (2012-Ohio-961) (restitution to insurance company allowed where fraud victim)
- State v. Moss, 10th Dist. No. 00AP-574 (2005-Ohio-6806) (App.R. 26(B) procedures; limits on reopening)