State v. Speights, 2021 Ohio 1194

Background

Speights was indicted with others for multiple ATM "smash and grab" offenses and pled guilty to 17 counts arising from eight incidents; he agreed to an aggregate prison term but no restitution term in the plea agreement.
The state submitted a restitution packet before sentencing containing invoices, repair estimates, police reports, correspondence, photographs and a chart attributing losses by incident, totaling $299,337.83.
At sentencing the court imposed a 16‑year aggregate term and ordered restitution of $299,337.83 (jointly and severally with codefendants); defense counsel stated Speights agreed with the restitution amount.
Speights did not object to restitution at sentencing; he later appealed after a separate procedural remand regarding an omitted count was resolved.
On appeal Speights argued the restitution order lacked competent, credible evidence of loss and causation and that the trial court failed to inquire about or offset potential insurance proceeds.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether restitution was supported by competent, credible evidence of victims' economic losses	State: restitution packet (invoices, estimates, police reports, correspondence, photos) provided competent, credible proof of losses	Speights: packet insufficient—no cancelled checks/bank wires, incomplete documentation for Carroll Company and only an Excel spreadsheet for Cardtronics	Court: evidence was competent and credible; amount discernible to a reasonable degree; Speights forfeited objections by failing to contest at sentencing; no plain error
Whether the losses were causally linked to offenses to which Speights pled guilty	State: packet tied each incident and claimed losses to the specific counts Speights admitted	Speights: contested that packet proved he caused the losses	Court: documentation linked damages to the specific incidents/counts; restitution appropriately tied to offenses pleaded
Whether the court erred by failing to inquire into or offset insurance proceeds	State: nothing in the record showed any insurance recovery; no requirement to speculate about insurance	Speights: large corporate victims likely had insurance; court should have inquired and reduced restitution for any insurance recovery	Court: absent any record evidence of insurance recovery, trial court did not commit plain error by not inquiring; defendants' speculation insufficient
Whether a restitution hearing was required	State: R.C. 2929.18(A)(1) permits reliance on victims' estimates/documents when amount is not disputed	Speights: packet deficiencies meant a hearing was necessary to establish losses	Court: Speights did not dispute the amount at sentencing; a hearing was not required; restitution may be based on submitted documentation

Key Cases Cited

State v. Johnson, 119 N.E.3d 914 (8th Dist. 2018) (restitution amount must be supported by competent, credible evidence)
State v. Gears, 733 N.E.2d 683 (6th Dist. 1999) (amount of restitution must be ascertainable to a reasonable degree of certainty)
State v. Waiters, 947 N.E.2d 710 (8th Dist. 2010) (restitution must be reasonably related to the victim's loss)
State v. Quarterman, 19 N.E.3d 900 (Ohio 2014) (plain‑error standard requirements)
State v. Long, 372 N.E.2d 804 (Ohio 1978) (plain‑error should be noticed only in exceptional circumstances)