State v. Queen
2020 Ohio 618
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Adam S. Queen was indicted on multiple counts; pled guilty to two counts of receiving stolen property and one count of having weapons while under disability; remaining charges dismissed.
- Victims submitted itemized lists and receipts documenting $6,510.00 in economic losses; PSI echoed those losses.
- At sentencing the trial court ordered $6,510.00 in restitution, joint-and-several with a codefendant.
- Queen’s counsel did not object to restitution at sentencing. Queen appealed, arguing restitution was improper and that counsel was ineffective for failing to object.
- Appellate review applied plain-error standard (no objection below); court examined whether record contained competent, credible evidence tying losses to Queen and whether court considered ability to pay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether restitution was properly imposed | State: restitution may be based on victim submissions and PSI; amount tied to documented losses | Queen: record lacks connection between restitution and his offenses; unclear whether property returned or insurance reimbursed | Affirmed — itemized victim lists, receipts, bill of particulars and PSI connected Queen’s conduct to the $6,510 loss; competent, credible evidence supported amount |
| Whether restitution required defendant’s express plea agreement assent | State: court may impose restitution under R.C. 2929.18(A) without plea waiver; plea form warned restitution may be imposed | Queen: he did not agree to restitution in plea | Rejected — defendant need not agree in plea; plea form acknowledged possible financial sanctions |
| Whether trial court considered present and future ability to pay | State: court relied on PSI and statements at sentencing showing financial information | Queen: court failed to consider ability to pay as required by R.C. 2929.19(B)(5) | Rejected — record shows court considered PSI and family testimony; compliance with R.C. 2929.19(B)(5) satisfied (no detailed findings required) |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not objecting to restitution | State: counsel not deficient because restitution was supported by evidence and consideration of ability to pay; tactical decisions not ineffective per se | Queen: failure to object deprived him of effective assistance and preserved nothing for appeal | Rejected — counsel’s performance not shown deficient; Strickland prejudice prong not reached once deficiency unproven |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21 (Ohio 2002) (plain-error framework and requirements)
- State v. Conway, 109 Ohio St.3d 412 (Ohio 2006) (court will not treat debatable trial tactics as ineffective assistance)
- State v. Rigsbee, 174 Ohio App.3d 12 (Ohio App. 2007) (consideration of PSI suffices to meet R.C. 2929.19(B)(5))
- State v. Davis, 155 Ohio App.3d 571 (Ohio App. 2003) (plain-error applied only to prevent manifest miscarriage of justice)