State v. Perkins
2011 Ohio 3129
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Perkins was convicted by a jury of four counts in separate cases consolidated for sentencing, and was ordered to pay restitution totaling $17,017.22.
- The initial sentencing entry failed to specify restitution recipients, prompting an appeal (Perkins I).
- A nunc pro tunc judgment later identified restitution as $500 to Richard Mader and $12,897.27 to the Ohio Victims of Crime Compensation Program, plus $3,619.95 to the Charles Crane Agency, which the court later narrowed.
- Perkins II held restitution to an insurance company (Charles Crane Agency) was improper under R.C. 2929.18(A)(1).
- In November 2010 the trial court issued a final judgment ordering $500 to Mader and $12,897.27 to the Victims of Crime Compensation Program, erasing the insurance-company restitution, and Perkins appealed the new entry.
- The court ultimately affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing to correct post-release-control imposition, but left the restitution amount and recipients as final.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the restitution order was a final, appealable judgment | Perkins: finality deficient due to unclear total and recipients | State: final, determinate amount and authorized recipients; no further hearing required | Final as to amount and recipients; remanded for post-release-control correction |
| Whether restitution to the Ohio Victims of Crime Compensation Program is permissible | Perkins: recipients must be properly limited under statute | State: OCVC Program is an authorized recipient | Permissible recipient under statute |
| Whether the lack of a hearing on restitution requires reversal | Perkins: restitution amount/recipients unresolved; requires hearing | State: amount not disputed; hearing not required | No additional hearing required; amount adjudicated |
| Whether the judgment properly imposed post-release control | Perkins: post-release control terms were incomplete and improper | State: imposition acknowledged but not correctly stated in judgment | Error in imposition of post-release control; remanded for resentencing under R.C. 2929.191 |
| Whether the judgment should be remanded to correct post-release-control issues while preserving rest of sentence | Perkins: full sentence finalized except post-release portion | State: limited correction appropriate | Remanded for correction of post-release-control provisions; remainder affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bartholomew, 119 Ohio St.3d 359 (2008-Ohio-4080) (permissibility of restitution to a state reparations fund)
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010-Ohio-6238) (post-release control correction limited to the post-release aspect)
- State v. Singleton, 124 Ohio St.3d 173 (2009-Ohio-6434) (mandatory post-release-control terms and correction procedures)
- State v. Perkins, 190 Ohio App.3d 328 (2010-Ohio-5058) (restitution limits and improper awards to an insurer; remand guidance)