2025 Ohio 15
Ohio Ct. App.2025Background
- T.O., a 16-year-old, was charged as a juvenile for stealing a vehicle, fleeing from police, and subsequent theft offenses, but was transferred to adult court for prosecution.
- He pled guilty to one count each of failure to comply with a police order, grand theft, and theft, while an additional theft count was dropped as part of a plea deal.
- As part of his plea deal, T.O. agreed to pay restitution for all counts, including the dismissed one.
- At sentencing, the trial court imposed $5,326.71 in restitution, finding T.O. had present and future ability to pay, and placed him on community control for up to five years.
- T.O. claimed indigency and argued he lacked the present or future ability to pay restitution, but the court found otherwise based on his education, prior work history, and lack of disabling conditions.
- T.O. appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the court’s finding regarding his ability to pay restitution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for present & future ability to pay restitution | T.O.: Insufficient evidence to support ability to pay over $5,000 in restitution as an indigent minor | State: Court properly considered T.O.'s future ability to pay based on record (education, past employment, health) | Court found no abuse of discretion; upheld restitution order |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Frock, 2007-Ohio-1026 (2d Dist.) (distinguished; reversal when no inquiry into ability to pay and lengthy incarceration)
- State v. Baker, 2016-Ohio-315 (2d Dist.) (distinguished; remand for hearing where restitution and ability to pay were disputed)
- State v. Brown, 2024-Ohio-2004 (2d Dist.) (reaffirming abuse of discretion standard for reviewing restitution orders)
- State v. Wilson, 2015-Ohio-3167 (2d Dist.) (abuse of discretion standard for restitution)