State v. Mihalik, 2021 Ohio 2465

In Sept. 2015, Ryan J. Mihalik pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated assault (fourth-degree felonies) and was sentenced to three years community control with $41,291.92 in restitution.
In June 2017, Mihalik told the trial court he had reached a civil settlement with the victim: a $2,000 payment and a release declaring all claims satisfied; the trial court denied his request to deem restitution satisfied (no appeal then).
In Dec. 2019, Mihalik moved to have the restitution deemed satisfied or, alternatively, to credit the $2,000 civil settlement against his restitution obligation; the trial court denied both requests.
The record contains receipts and a settlement agreement acknowledging the $2,000 payment.
Mihalik appealed, arguing the civil release discharged his criminal restitution obligation.
The appellate court affirmed denial of the motion to deem restitution satisfied but reversed the denial of credit for the $2,000 and remanded for the trial court to determine whether the settlement payment covered economic loss caused by the offense.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a civil settlement/release discharges criminal restitution	State: Restitution is part of sentence and need not be negated by private civil releases	Mihalik: Victim’s civil release (full settlement) should satisfy/terminate restitution	Court: Civil settlement does not bar restitution; private releases cannot circumvent penal objectives; trial court correctly denied deeming restitution satisfied
Whether settlement payments must be credited against restitution	State: Court did not apply the $2,000 payment toward restitution	Mihalik: $2,000 paid in civil settlement must be credited against $41,291.92 restitution	Court: Denial to credit $2,000 was contrary to law (R.C. 2929.18); reversed and remanded to determine whether payment was for economic loss caused by the offense

State v. Aguirre, 144 Ohio St.3d 179 (Ohio 2014) (restitution serves remedial and punitive goals)
United States v. Bearden, 274 F.3d 1031 (6th Cir. 2001) (private settlements cannot be used to avoid criminal punishment)
United States v. Savoie, 985 F.2d 612 (1st Cir. 1993) (law will not tolerate privately negotiated circumvention of criminal sanctions)
Brown v. Gallagher, 179 Ohio App.3d 577 (4th Dist. 2008) (indemnity agreement implicating restitution may be void as contrary to restitution’s purpose)
State v. Bowman, 181 Ohio App.3d 407 (2d Dist. 2009) (courts should avoid duplicate payments or windfalls to victims)