State v. Sheesley, 2015 Ohio 4565

In 2011 Dennis J. Sheesley pleaded guilty to two counts of receiving stolen property and was sentenced to two years of community control.
Conditions included $1,800 restitution to the victim and regular reporting to probation.
By 2013 Sheesley missed probation appointments and had paid only $350 toward restitution; he admitted the violations but claimed inability to pay.
At the violation hearing the court questioned his employment, determined he could make payments, and—at defense counsel’s request—extended community control for one year instead of imposing prison.
The extended conditions required monthly payments toward the outstanding restitution balance.
Sheesley appealed, arguing the court erred by not expressly finding he had the ability to pay and that his nonpayment was willful, invoking Bearden and due process/equal protection principles.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court must make express findings of ability to pay and willfulness before extending community control for unpaid restitution	Sheesley: court erred by extending community control without explicitly finding he had ability to pay and that failure to pay was willful (due process/Equal Protection).	State: Bearden (and its inquiry requirements) governs imprisonment for nonpayment, not the extension of community control when liberty is not curtailed.	Court: Affirmed. Bearden does not apply because the court did not revoke liberty or impose imprisonment; extension with payment condition was permissible.

Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983) (probationer cannot be imprisoned for failure to pay unless court inquires into ability to pay and willfulness; imprisonment only if bona fide efforts and alternatives are inadequate)
State v. Bell, 331 P.3d 1062 (Or. Ct. App. 2014) (Bearden’s holding limited to imprisonment for nonpayment; distinguishing extension of community supervision from incarceration)