State v. McMullen
2015 Ohio 3741
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- McMullen, a property manager, was charged with theft for collecting rent from tenants and not forwarding it to owners.
- The property owners claimed total losses of $101,290, though McMullen disputed the amount.
- Under a plea agreement, McMullen pleaded guilty to theft and agreed to pay $40,000 restitution.
- The trial court sentenced McMullen to three years of community control and ordered $40,000 restitution.
- McMullen challenges restitution and the voluntariness of her plea on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether restitution required without ability-to-pay analysis was proper | McMullen argues lack of ability-to-pay consideration | McMullen contends no necessity to assess ability to pay due to plea | Overruled; restitution valid under plea agreement. |
| Whether the plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made | McMullen asserts lack of awareness of evidence and coercion | McMullen claims proper Crim.R. 11 compliance; informed | Overruled; plea valid and voluntary. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Andrews, 2012-Ohio-4664 (1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-110735) (requires evidence of ability-to-pay consideration; not mandatory to hold a hearing when restitution is plea-based)
- State v. Ballard, 1981-Ohio-473 (Ohio St.2d 473) (Crim.R. 11 compliance and waiver of rights)
- State v. Fields, 2010-Ohio-4114 (1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-090648) (meaningful plea dialogue; voluntary and intelligent waiver)
- State v. St. Martin, 2012-Ohio-1633 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 96834) (restitution issues under plea agreements; no error in amount negotiated)
- State v. Coburn, 2010-Ohio-692 (6th Dist. Sandusky No. S-09-006) (when restitution is part of plea, no pre-payability finding required)