State v. Nash, 2013 Ohio 1346

Nash was convicted by a jury of breaking and entering, grand theft, vandalism, and possessing criminal tools, and sentenced to 18 months with restitution of $24,656.11 to CEI.
The crimes involved a late-2011 transformer theft from CEI; a large transformer was missing, with evidence of oil drag marks and Nash over the scene with a tools bag.
Police arrested Nash and another man at the scene; Nash dropped gloves and smelled of oil; CEI valued the loss at $24,656.11 including repairs and cleanup.
Nash represented himself at trial; the court awarded restitution based on CEI’s projected costs and losses.
On appeal Nash raised multiple challenges including weight of the evidence, speedy-trial issues, new-trial request grounds, and restitution amount; the court addressed each and remanded for restitution proceedings.
Convictions affirmed; restitution order vacated and remanded for a proper restitution hearing under R.C. 2929.18 and 2929.19(B)(5).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Weight of the evidence challenge	Nash asserts the verdicts were against the weight of the evidence	Nash argues testimony conflicted with police reports	Convictions not against weight of the evidence
Speedy-trial rights violation	Argues continuances unauthorized violated speedy-trial rights	State tolled time due to Nash’s motions; defendant filed many pro se motions	No statutory or constitutional speedy-trial violation
Motion for a new trial	Counts that trial transcript was not reviewed before denial	No credible basis shown for a new trial	No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed
Restitution amount correctness	Restitution based on CEI’s total damages including unrelated costs	Amount exceeded economic loss from the specific offense	Remanded for a hearing to determine correct restitution amount and ability to pay

State v. Leonard, 104 Ohio St.3d 54 (2004-Ohio-6235) (weight-of-the-evidence standard; factual review)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997-Ohio-52) (thirteenth juror; exceptional weight review)
Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31 (1982) (standards for manifest weight review of evidence)
State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (1967) (credibility and weight primarily for the factfinder)
Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (four-factor constitutional speedy-trial test)
Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (1992) (presumptively prejudicial delay threshold guidance)
State v. O’Brien, 34 Ohio St.3d 7 (1987) (constitutional vs statutory speedy-trial considerations)
State v. Jones, 8th Dist. No. 90903, 2009-Ohio-3371 (2009) (speedy-trial tolling when defendant files numerous motions)
State v. Miller, 2005-Ohio-518 (2005) (presumptively prejudicial delay concepts; Barker framework)
State v. Gaines, 9th Dist. No. 00CA008298, 2004-Ohio-3407 (2004) (constitutional speedy-trial standards; Barker factors)
State v. Braun, 8th Dist. No. 95271, 2011-Ohio-1688 (2011) (abuse of discretion standard for motions for new trial)
State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71 (1991) (new-trial review standard)