State v. Sheets, 2018 Ohio 996

Appellant Matthew Sheets was indicted on three counts of receiving stolen property (fourth-degree felonies) and one count of aggravated possession of methamphetamine (fifth-degree felony) after a search of his residence revealed several stolen vehicles and motorcycle parts.
Sheets pleaded guilty to all counts at a change-of-plea hearing; the court conducted a colloquy and accepted the pleas.
At sentencing the court imposed three years of community control, fined Sheets $2,500, and ordered restitution of $21,650 to Michael Tonn and $1,924.98 to Rodney Simpson.
Defense counsel objected that Tonn’s and Simpson’s losses were not charged in the indictment or listed in the bill of particulars and requested a restitution hearing; the prosecutor indicated a hearing could be set, but the court proceeded to decide restitution immediately.
The record lacked competent, specific evidence establishing the amount and nexus of the restitution awards to a reasonable degree of certainty.
The Fifth District reversed in part and remanded for evidentiary hearings on restitution to Tonn and Simpson; remaining sentencing challenges were deemed moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by denying an evidentiary hearing on restitution	State argued Sheets did not properly preserve objection to restitution and that record could support restitution	Sheets argued restitution amounts were unsupported by the record, not charged, and he requested a hearing	Court held denial of an evidentiary hearing was error; remanded for hearings on restitution to Tonn and Simpson
Whether the court relied on evidence dehors the record to set restitution	State relied on seized property descriptions and alleged in-court representations of stolen items	Sheets argued the court relied on recollection from a co-defendant’s case and unproven assertions not in discovery	Court found the record murky and insufficient; remand required for proper factfinding
Whether denial of hearing violated due process / confrontation rights	State did not meaningfully oppose a later hearing and argued forfeiture/plain-error rules	Sheets argued immediate ruling prevented meaningful contest and violated his rights to confront and contest restitution evidence	Court treated the practical denial of a hearing as prejudicial and remanded; due-process arguments rendered moot after remand

Marcum v. Ohio, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (Ohio 2016) (establishes R.C. 2953.08 standard for felony sentence review)
Brumback v. State, 109 Ohio App.3d 65 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996) (restitution limited to actual losses caused by the defendant's crime)
State v. Martin, 140 Ohio App.3d 326 (Ohio Ct. App. 2000) (trial court may order restitution based on victim's economic loss)