State v. Petticrew, 2023 Ohio 159

On August 13, 2021, Petticrew crashed her van into another vehicle, which flipped; two occupants were injured, and Petticrew fled the scene. A 6‑month‑old infant was believed to have been in her van but was later left with relatives.
Petticrew was on post‑release control for a prior felony when the crash occurred. Police pursued her van, which she later abandoned; she eluded arrest until served with an indictment while arrested on an unrelated felony.
A Clark County grand jury indicted Petticrew on felony failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer, child endangering (misdemeanor), and failure to stop after an accident (misdemeanor). She was later indicted in a separate case as well.
Petticrew moved to dismiss for statutory speedy‑trial violations and sought bond reduction; the trial court denied the speedy‑trial motion but granted release on her own recognizance with GPS monitoring.
On March 11, 2022, Petticrew entered a negotiated guilty plea to felony failure to comply and misdemeanor failure to stop; the State dismissed the child‑endangering count and charges in the other case. The court ordered a PSI and scheduled sentencing.
At sentencing the court imposed concurrent terms (24 months for the felony; 180 days for the misdemeanor) and ordered $13,043.99 restitution. Petticrew appealed raising two assignments of error: (1) statutory speedy‑trial violation and (2) restitution imposed without consideration of ability to pay.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court violated R.C. 2945.71(C)(2) by failing to bring Petticrew to trial within the statutory time	Petticrew: her statutory speedy‑trial rights were violated.	State: Petticrew’s guilty plea waived any challenge; in any event tolling events and custody on another case prevented lapse.	Guilty plea waived statutory speedy‑trial challenge; assignment overruled.
Whether the court erred by imposing restitution without considering Petticrew’s present and future ability to pay (R.C. 2929.19(B)(5))	Petticrew: court failed to consider her present/future ability to pay restitution.	State: Petticrew did not object below (plain‑error review); the PSI and record show the court considered ability to pay.	No plain error; court’s consideration may be inferred from PSI and record; restitution affirmed.

State v. MacDonald, 48 Ohio St.2d 66, 357 N.E.2d 40 (Ohio 1976) (constitutional speedy‑trial right discussion)
State v. Kelley, 57 Ohio St.3d 127, 566 N.E.2d 658 (Ohio 1991) (guilty plea waives statutory speedy‑trial challenge)
State v. Wickline, 50 Ohio St.3d 114, 552 N.E.2d 913 (Ohio 1990) (waiver of issues not raised at trial)
State v. Johnson, 164 Ohio App.3d 792, 844 N.E.2d 372 (Ohio App. 2005) (failure to challenge restitution below waives all but plain error)
State v. Payne, 114 Ohio St.3d 502, 873 N.E.2d 306 (Ohio 2007) (plain‑error standard explained)
State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91, 372 N.E.2d 804 (Ohio 1978) (plain‑error cautionary rule)
State v. Culver, 160 Ohio App.3d 172, 826 N.E.2d 367 (Ohio App. 2005) (trial court need not state on record factors but record must permit inference of consideration of ability to pay)
State v. Conley, 43 N.E.3d 775 (Ohio App. 2015) (court may infer consideration of ability to pay from record/PSI)