State v. Stutz
2011 Ohio 5210
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Stutz was indicted on burglary (3rd degree) and receiving stolen property (4th degree).
- He pled guilty after arraignment and was sentenced to concurrent terms of 1 year and 6 months, with restitution of $3,000 and court costs but no fines.
- Counsel filed an Anders brief; Stutz received opportunity to file pro se but did not file one.
- Appellant challenges on appeal include ineffective assistance of counsel, restitution amount, and court costs.
- Trial court considered presentence report, a letter from Stutz, and State’s restitution information, ultimately reducing restitution to $3,000.
- Court advised that no separate hearing was required since there was agreement on restitution and no disputes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | State argues no prejudice; counsel performance not deficient. | Stutz claims ineffective assistance affecting plea/rights. | Frivolous; no proven prejudice; counsel effective. |
| Restitution amount reasonable and supported | State asserts $8,938 claimed; request reasonable for losses. | Stutz contends amount improper or excessive. | Restitution properly set at $3,000; supported by evidence and negotiations. |
| Hearing on restitution amount | State believes hearing unnecessary when parties agree. | Stutz seeks formal hearing on amount. | No hearing required; agreement and lack of dispute justify no hearing. |
| Imposition of court costs | Costs are mandatory under law; waiver possible but not required. | Waiver or indigency relief should be considered; court abused discretion. | No abuse of discretion; costs properly imposed at $332; court considered ability to pay. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (ineffective-assistance standard requires prejudice)
- State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (1989) (adopts Strickland standard in Ohio)
- State v. Summers, 2006-Ohio-3199 (Ohio Ct. App.) (restitution evidentiary standard; reasonable certainty)
- State v. Waiters, 2010-Ohio-5764 (Ohio Ct. App.) (due-process relation of restitution to loss)
- State v. Twitty, 2011-Ohio-4725 (Ohio Ct. App.) (waiver considerations for restitution and related procedures)