State v. Ratliff
194 Ohio App. 3d 202
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Ratliff was indicted in February 2010 on two counts of theft, one count of extortion, and one count of impersonating a peace officer.
- Pursuant to a plea agreement, Ratliff pled guilty to theft from an elderly person of $25,000 or more, but less than $100,000, under R.C. 2913.02(B)(3).
- The trial court sentenced Ratliff to seven years in prison and ordered restitution of $121,000.
- Ratliff appealed challenging the amount of restitution, arguing it exceeded the theft amount, that no restitution hearing was held, and that the court failed to consider ability to pay.
- The PSR disclosed three different loss amounts: victim’s estimate of $160,000, prosecutor’s estimate around $126,000, and Ratliff’s estimate of about $86,000; the court adopted $121,000 after subtracting $5,000 paid by a codefendant.
- The appellate court held restitution must not exceed the amount corresponding to the offense’s statutory element and remanded for a hearing on the correct amount.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May restitution exceed the element of the offense? | Ratliff contends restitution > $100,000 impermissible since offense cap is $100,000. | State argues the amount may be supported by loss actually suffered and is within court’s discretion. | Restitution cannot exceed the offense’s statutory element; $121,000 was improper. |
| Was a restitution hearing required when the amount was disputed? | Ratliff disputed the amount and requested a hearing. | State contends waivers or lack of objection preclude challenge. | Abuse of discretion: a hearing was required when the amount was disputed. |
| Did the court properly consider the defendant’s ability to pay? | Ratliff argues the court did not adequately consider ability to pay. | State contends the court did consider the PSR and Ratliff’s stated intent to repay. | Court did consider ability to pay; however, the hearing deficiency requires remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Williams, 34 Ohio App.3d 33 (1986) (restitution must relate to loss; abuse of discretion standard applies)
- State v. Naylor, 2011-Ohio-960 (Ohio) (restitution review requires credible evidence and abuse-of-discretion standard)
- State v. Cochran, 2010-Ohio-3444 (Champaign App. 2010) (hearing required when offender disputes restitution amount)
- State v. MacQuarrie, 2009-Ohio-2182 (Montgomery App. 2009) (waiver concepts for restitution where amount disputed)
- State v. Clifton, 65 Ohio App.3d 117 (1989) (restitution limited to losses from the offense; counts dismissed affect amount)
- State v. Radway, 2007-Ohio-4273 (Franklin App. 2007) (limits on restitution related to specific offense)
- State v. Summers, 2006-Ohio-3199 (Montgomery App. 2006) (evidence requirement for restitution amount)
- State v. Warner, 55 Ohio St.3d 31 (1990) (principles guiding restitution and loss estimation)
- State v. Bender, 2005-Ohio-919 (Champaign App. 2005) (basis for calculating restitution amounts)