State v. Osborne, 2021 Ohio 3352

Defendant Neil Osborne was charged with two counts of aggravated arson after a March 2020 fire at an apartment building; he pleaded guilty to a first-degree aggravated-arson count and the second count was nolled.
The plea hearing did not address restitution; the case was continued for a presentence investigation (PSI) and sentencing.
The PSI included victim-impact statements and restitution requests from five of 11 identified victims; documentation supporting those requests was limited or absent.
At sentencing the court imposed a six-year prison term and ordered $7,765 in restitution to five victims, with amounts that in some instances differed from victims’ stated requests and lacked documentary proof.
Osborne appealed, arguing (1) the trial court failed to apply R.C. 2929.13(D) in disposing of the presumption of prison and (2) the restitution awards lacked competent, credible evidentiary support and failed to account for insurance proceeds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by not making R.C. 2929.13(D) findings before imposing prison	State: No error; prison presumption for a first-degree felony applies and the court imposed prison, so no R.C. 2929.13(D) findings were required	Osborne: Court had to consider/apply R.C. 2929.13(D) to overcome presumption of prison	Court: Overruled. Because court followed the statutory presumption and imposed prison, it was not required to make R.C. 2929.13(D) findings
Whether restitution awards were supported by competent, credible evidence and accounted for insurance	State: Restitution may be based on victim recommendations and the PSI; amounts in PSI support award	Osborne: Awards rested on speculation and unsupported PSI assertions; some losses were covered by insurance or unproven	Court: Sustained plain error as several awards lacked documentary or testimonial support; restitution order vacated and remanded for determination consistent with R.C. 2929.18 and Lalain

State v. Lalain, 994 N.E.2d 423 (Ohio 2013) (trial court may base restitution on PSI but must ensure amount is supported; no requirement to include restitution in plea colloquy)
State v. Brumback, 671 N.E.2d 1064 (Ohio App. 1996) (restitution must be tied to offender’s conduct and victim’s loss)
State v. Marbury, 661 N.E.2d 271 (Ohio App. 1995) (standard of appellate review for restitution is abuse of discretion)
State v. Tichon, 658 N.E.2d 16 (Ohio App. 1995) (plain-error standard requires the error be obvious, palpable, and fundamental)