State v. McNear, 2020 Ohio 4686

On Feb. 8, 2019 McNear attempted to transfer title to a stolen vehicle at a Hamilton County clerk’s office using forged out-of-state title documents; a clerk detected the forgery and alerted police.
McNear was indicted for forgery, receiving stolen property, and tampering with records; he pled guilty to forgery (R.C. 2913.31(A)(3)) in exchange for dismissal of the other charges.
The state conceded at sentencing it had no evidence that McNear had stolen the car or that he participated in a larger car-theft conspiracy; McNear claimed he was paid $100 to put the car in his name and denied knowledge that it was stolen.
The victim suffered economic losses when the car was stolen and later recovered (missing personal items, damage, odor, flat tire, stains), and incurred an insurance deductible and re-registration fees.
Despite the state not requesting restitution, the trial court ordered McNear to pay $4,615.95 in restitution and imposed a $1,000 fine; McNear received community control and community service.
McNear appealed, arguing (1) restitution was improper because his forgery was not the direct and proximate cause of the victim’s losses, and (2) the fine was imposed without adequate consideration of his ability to pay.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether restitution for $4,615.95 may be ordered	Restitution compensates the victim for economic losses tied to the offense and is appropriate here	McNear: his forgery was not the direct and proximate cause of the victim’s losses from the vehicle theft; "but-for" causation lacking	Reversed — restitution vacated because losses did not flow directly and proximately from the forgery conviction
Whether the $1,000 fine was imposed without considering ability to pay (R.C. 2929.19(B)(5))	Court considered presentence report and facts; fine is authorized by statute	McNear: trial court failed to adequately consider present and future ability to pay	Affirmed — record (PSI, employment history, counsel’s statements) shows some consideration of ability to pay; fine not contrary to law

State v. Thornton, 91 N.E.3d 359 (discussing standard of review for restitution as part of a felony sentence)
State v. Lalain, 994 N.E.2d 423 (Ohio Supreme Court on restitution limited to economic loss as direct and proximate result of the offense)
State v. Lovelace, 738 N.E.2d 418 (proximate-cause and "but-for" analysis for restitution)
State v. Simmons, 88 N.E.3d 651 (restitution must be based on the criminal conduct of conviction)
State v. Hafer, 760 N.E.2d 56 (restitution cannot be imposed for offenses to which defendant did not plead guilty)