State v. Miles, 2021 Ohio 4581

Miles was charged with first-degree misdemeanor theft and second-degree misdemeanor obstructing official business; she pleaded guilty to theft and the obstruction charge was dismissed.
Matthew 25 Ministries alleged donations taken from its property; its representative estimated two "gaylords" of clothing (approximate fair-market valuation) totaling about $20,000, then offered to accept $5,000.
At sentencing the state sought restitution; Miles (through counsel) requested an evidentiary hearing because there was no concrete proof of what or how much was taken and the state said it could present surveillance video if given a recess.
The trial court did not grant the recess; it encouraged Miles to agree to restitution in order to receive community control rather than jail, and the court’s journal entry ordered $5,000 restitution to Matthew 25 Ministries.
On appeal the First District held the court abused its discretion by denying Miles a meaningful opportunity to be heard (no evidentiary hearing after Miles disputed the amount) and by failing to impose the specific restitution amount in open court; the cause was reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing and for the court to impose restitution in open court with Miles present.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by imposing $5,000 restitution without an evidentiary hearing and without pronouncing the amount in open court	The state argued restitution was proper, that valuation could be based on the victim’s estimate (and the parties ultimately agreed to $5,000), and the court could rely on the victim’s recommendation	Miles argued she disputed the amount, requested a hearing and cross-examination, the state offered additional evidence (video) but the court denied a meaningful hearing and failed to announce the amount in open court	Reversed and remanded: court abused its discretion; R.C. 2929.28(A)(1) requires a hearing if amount disputed and restitution must be imposed in open court; hold an evidentiary hearing and impose amount in open court with defendant present

State v. Adams, 143 N.E.3d 1140 (Ohio 2019) (appellate review of restitution for abuse of discretion)
State v. Lalain, 994 N.E.2d 423 (Ohio 2013) (statute mandates a hearing when offender, victim, or survivor disputes restitution amount)
Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 (U.S. 1972) (procedural due process requires meaningful opportunity to be heard)
State v. Cowan, 814 N.E.2d 846 (Ohio 2004) (the opportunity to be heard at sentencing must be meaningful)
State ex rel. Winfree v. McDonald, 66 N.E.3d 739 (Ohio 2016) (trial court must determine and impose specific restitution amount at sentencing; resentencing required to correct flawed restitution order)