State v. St. Martin, 2012 Ohio 1633

St. Martin was indicted on 127 counts in 2005–2006 for a fraudulent mortgage scheme.
In 2010 he pled to 21 counts, including a second-degree felony pattern of corrupt activity and multiple fraud-related offenses.
As part of the plea, St. Martin agreed to forfeit $30,000 and seized computers, pay $3,089,750 restitution, and cooperate with investigations.
The State dismissed the remaining 106 counts; the plea disposes of related mortgage-deal charges in Cuyahoga County where he acted as broker or deal maker.
In January 2011 the trial court sentenced him to six years for the pattern-of-corrupt-activity count, with concurrent terms on other counts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether restitution amount violated due process or statutory limits	St. Martin argues restitution exceeds statutory limits and he cannot pay.	St. Martin contends the amount is improper under constitutional due process and ability-to-pay considerations.	Restitution upheld; amount fixed by plea agreement and court; plain error not shown; ability-to-pay not challenged at plea or sentencing.
Whether sentence is contrar y to law given disproportionality to similarly situated offenders	St. Martin contends sentences of co-defendants show disproportionality under R.C. 2929.11(B).	St. Martin argues six-year term is outside the mainstream given co-defendants’ probation.	Sentence not contrary to law; court considered distinctions (plea to more counts, role as ringleader) and six-year term within statutory range for a second-degree felony.

State v. Hody, 8th Dist. No. 94328, 2010-Ohio-6020 (8th Dist. 2010) (restoration of restitution amount; ability-to-pay considerations)
State v. Stamper, 12th Dist. No. CA2009-04-115, 2010-Ohio-1939 (12th Dist. 2010) (restitution calculations and standards)
State v. Warner, 55 Ohio St.3d 31, 564 N.E.2d 18 (1990) (Ohio 1990) (statutory basis for restitution; needs evidentiary support)
State v. Myrick, 8th Dist. No. 91492, 2009-Ohio-2030 (8th Dist. 2009) (plea colloquy and understanding restitution as part of sentence)
State v. Lalain, 8th Dist. No. 95857, 2011-Ohio-4813 (8th Dist. 2011) (plea-stipulated restitution and waiver of objections)
State v. Sancho, 8th Dist. No. 91903, 2009-Ohio-5478 (8th Dist. 2009) (stipulation as sufficient to support restitution order)
State v. Berlingeri, 8th Dist. No. 95458, 2011-Ohio-2528 (8th Dist. 2011) (no requirement that co-defendants receive equal sentences; focus on reasonableness)
State v. Chafin, 30 Ohio St.2d 13, 282 N.E.2d 46 (1972) (Ohio 1972) (principle that felony sentence should be proportionate to offense)
State v. Breeden, 8th Dist. No. 84663, 2005-Ohio-510 (8th Dist. 2005) (disproportionality analysis for sentences of similar crimes)