State v. Starr
2015 Ohio 3675
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- William V. Starr III pleaded guilty to amended counts of gross sexual imposition and abduction; other counts were nolled and offenses merged; sentenced to 18 months imprisonment and five years mandatory postrelease control.
- Trial court found Starr indigent and waived court costs but ordered restitution of $13,220.63 to the victim for medical treatment and psychotherapy.
- The state presented invoices at sentencing showing the billed medical/therapy expenses and stated the victim had no insurance coverage; defense counsel received the invoices only at the hearing, reviewed them, and indicated the amounts “appear to add up.”
- Defense counsel suggested Medicaid might have subsidized charges; the state denied that and confirmed bills were the victim’s responsibility.
- Starr appealed, arguing (1) restitution was not established to a reasonable degree of medical certainty and (2) ineffective assistance because counsel failed to request a restitution hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether restitution amount met "reasonable degree of certainty" requirement | State: Invoices and victim recommendation establish economic loss; no dispute, so court could rely on them | Starr: Amount not proven to reasonable degree of medical certainty | Court: Competent, credible evidence (invoices) supported restitution; no hearing required where amount undisputed |
| Whether defense counsel was ineffective for not requesting a restitution hearing | State: Counsel reviewed invoices, agreed amount; no basis for dispute | Starr: Counsel should have requested a hearing under R.C. 2929.18(A)(1) | Court: Counsel’s performance was reasonable; no prejudice shown because evidence supported amount |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lalain, 136 Ohio St.3d 248 (2013) (restitution cannot exceed victim’s economic loss directly caused by the offense)
- State v. Roberts, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99755 (2014) (amount of restitution must be supported by competent, credible evidence to a reasonable degree of certainty)
- State v. Perez, 124 Ohio St.3d 122 (2009) (standard for ineffective assistance claims follows Strickland two-prong test)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (counsel performance and prejudice standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (1989) (Ohio discussion of ineffective assistance standards)