State v. Rohrbaugh, 191 Ohio App. 3d 117

Rohrbaugh was indicted on multiple counts related to a theft from First Check, including breaking and entering and theft; the indictment later led to a plea to receiving stolen property (Count One) and conviction on Count Eight (possession of cocaine).
Police recovered $5,227 in cash in Rohrbaugh’s vehicle and $1,176 on his person; the $5,227 was returned to the victim, and the $1,176 was retained by the state as partly affected by the restitution process.
The trial court ordered restitution to First Check in the amount of $4,145.81 after sentencing in August 2007.
The store’s total loss from the incident was $16,374.79, but after deductions for the cash recovered and other adjustments, the net loss cited for restitution was $4,733.81.
Rohrbaugh appealed, challenging the restitution amount as exceeding the actual economic loss caused by the offense he was convicted of (receiving stolen property), and arguing issues related to ability to pay and apportionment.
On remand, the appellate court held that restitution must be limited to the economic loss caused by the offense for which Rohrbaugh was convicted, and vacated the restitution order in part.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether restitution may exceed the loss caused by the convicted offense	State contends restitution must reflect economic loss from the offense; limit to convicted offenses.	Rohrbaugh argues restitution included damages from offenses for which he was not convicted and should be limited to his convicted conduct.	Restitution limited to loss caused by the offense for which convicted; amount exceeded due to including other offenses; vacated.
Whether the restitution amount should consider Rohrbaugh’s ability to pay	State argues restitution should be appropriate to the victim’s losses and offender’s ability to pay.	Rohrbaugh asserts consideration of ability to pay was required.	Court notes abuse-of-discretion standard but vacates restitution that exceeded actual loss; ability-to-pay assessment is not dispositive of the excessive amount here.
Whether restitution should be apportioned among all individuals involved	State argues restitution should reflect the full victim’s losses attributable to the offense.	Rohrbaugh argues apportionment to others involved is inappropriate since he was not convicted of all related offenses.	Not addressed as dispositive; the primary issue is the exceedance of loss attributable to the convicted offense.

State v. Griffus, 2009-Ohio-304 (3d Dist. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion standard for restitution decisions)
State v. Lamere, 2007-Ohio-4930 (3d Dist. 2007) (restoration limits tied to offense)
State v. Williams, 2004-Ohio-2801 (3d Dist. 2004) (restitution limited to actual economic loss from the convicted offense)
State v. Hafer, 144 Ohio App.3d 345 (Court of Appeals, 2001) (restitution must be limited to losses caused by the crime of which defendant was convicted)
State v. Hooks, 135 Ohio App.3d 746 (Court of Appeals, 2000) (restitution restrictions consistent with convicted offenses)
State v. Brumback, 109 Ohio App.3d 65 (Court of Appeals, 1996) (restitution scope tied to conviction)
State v. Friend, 68 Ohio App.3d 241 (Court of Appeals, 1990) (limitations on restitution related to convicted conduct)
State v. Rosebrook, 2006-Ohio-734 (3d Dist. 2006) (discussion of restitution boundaries in appeal)