State v. Moyer, 2011 Ohio 5206

Moyer was indicted for theft from an elderly or disabled person and tampering with records, involving 11 victims and alleged total loss of $25,000, from Graceworks group homes where she worked.
Moyer pled guilty to theft from an elderly or disabled person ($25,000) and the tampering charge was dismissed.
Graceworks claimed insurance reimbursed the victims and that Graceworks incurred a $2,500 deductible; the State also presented a $25,000 audit cost by a certified fraud examiner.
Graceworks, as a third party, sought restitution for the alleged loss and the audit costs; Moyer contended Graceworks was not a victim entitled to restitution.
At sentencing, the trial court ordered $27,500 restitution to Graceworks, stating third-party reimbursement rules applied and that Graceworks was not a direct victim.
The sole assigned error contends the trial court erred in ordering restitution to a third party not a victim under RC 2929.18.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Graceworks qualifies as a victim/authorized payee for restitution.	Moyer: Graceworks is not a victim; cannot receive restitution.	Moyer: restitution may be paid to an agency designated by the court that paid the victim’s losses.	Graceworks is not entitled; restitution to Graceworks is reversible error.

State v. Bartholomew, 119 Ohio St.3d 359 (Ohio 2008) (restitution to reparations fund authorized; agency designated by court includes reparations fund)
State v. Brinson, 2009-Ohio-5040 (Ohio App.3d 2009) (restitution may be awarded to an agency that paid victim’s losses)
State v. Wilson, 2010-Ohio-109 (Ohio App. 2010) (defines payees for restitution under RC 2929.18(A)(1))
State v. Rigsbee, 174 Ohio App.3d 13 (Ohio App. 2001) (restitution for investigative costs as economic loss may be awarded to a designated agency)