State v. Stump, 2014 Ohio 1487

In 2010, Community Bank inadvertently sent another customer's banking information to Stump, which she used to transfer funds from that customer to her own account and then withdrew the funds.
Stump pled guilty to theft in exchange for admission to a diversion program; the guilty plea was held in abeyance pending program completion.
As part of the diversion program, Stump promised to pay $2,000 restitution to Community Bank and to pay diversion fees and court costs.
Stump failed to complete the diversion program; the trial court later sentenced her to four years of community control and ordered restitution and other financial obligations per the program agreement.
The trial court’s judgment required Stump to pay $2,000 restitution to Community Bank, plus $515 in diversion fees and court costs, which prompted an appeal.
The court ultimately vacated the $2,000 restitution payable to Community Bank, but affirmed the remaining financial obligations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether restitution to a third party bank was authorized by law	State argues restitution to Community Bank enforceable under the diversion contract.	Stump contends restitution to a third party not a direct victim is impermissible.	Restitution to Community Bank not authorized; vacated.
Whether the court properly imposed diversion fees and costs without considering ability to pay	State asserts statutory authority to assess fees/costs and that ability-to-pay review is not required for these sanctions.	Stump argues the court should have considered present and future ability to pay under R.C. 2929.19(B)(5).	Division holds no requirement to consider ability to pay for these costs; affirmed as to costs/fees aside from the restitution issue.

State v. Moss, 186 Ohio App.3d 787 (4th Dist. 2010) (restitution to third parties and plain error concerns)
State v. Haney, 180 Ohio App.3d 554 (4th Dist. 2009) (restitution and appealability concerns in the fourth district)
State v. Crum, 2013-Ohio-903 (5th Dist. Delaware) (third-party restitution limitations for banks)
State v. Dull, 2013-Ohio-1395 (3rd Dist. Seneca) (victim = actual person; third parties are not victims for restitution)
State v. Kelley, 2011-Ohio-4902 (4th Dist. Pickaway) (limits on restitution to third parties)
State v. Rohda, 135 Ohio App.3d 21 (3rd Dist. 1999) (void sentences not authorized by statute; applicability to restitution)
State v. Hooks, 135 Ohio App.3d 746 (10th Dist. 2000) (authorized-by-law concept in sentencing)
State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365 (2010) (authorized by law concept; syllabus guidance on discretion)