State v. Thornton, 91 N.E.3d 359

Thornton, while living with John and Merri Gerke, used the Gerkes’ check and bank account without permission to pay her rent and bills.
The Gerkes reported the theft to Fifth Third Bank, which reimbursed them $5,454.01 before Thornton’s sentencing.
Thornton pleaded guilty to one count of theft (R.C. 2913.02(A)(1)); other counts were dismissed. The trial court sentenced her to five years of community control, a $250 fine, and ordered $5,454.01 in restitution to the Gerkes.
Defense argued the Gerkes had suffered no economic loss because the bank had reimbursed them and that restitution to a third party (the bank) was impermissible.
The trial court initially considered ordering restitution to the bank but instead ordered restitution to the Gerkes; Thornton appealed the restitution order as contrary to law.
The appellate court held that because the Gerkes were fully reimbursed before sentencing, they suffered no economic loss and the restitution order was contrary to law; the restitution award was removed and the judgment affirmed as modified.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether restitution may be ordered to compensate the victim after the victim was fully reimbursed by a third party	Restitution to victim is appropriate to avoid promoting theft and to make offender pay for stolen funds	Gerkes suffered no economic loss because Fifth Third Bank reimbursed them; restitution therefore improper and would create double recovery	Reversed restitution: because the victims had been fully reimbursed before sentencing, they suffered no economic loss and restitution was contrary to law
Whether restitution may be ordered to a third party (the bank) not named as victim	Trial court suggested ordering restitution to bank or victim to prevent offender benefiting from theft	Defense: R.C. 2929.18 does not permit ordering restitution to third parties not named as victims in charging documents	Court: Statutory scheme bars restitution to third parties not identified as victims; bank not a proper restitution recipient

State v. Marcum, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (Ohio 2016) (appellate standard: review whether sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law)
State v. Aguirre, 41 N.E.3d 1178 (Ohio 2014) (trial court may not order restitution to third parties not identified as victims)
State v. Bowman, 909 N.E.2d 170 (Ohio Ct. App.) (restitution amount must account for offsets/compensation received by victim)
State v. Martin, 747 N.E.2d 318 (Ohio Ct. App.) (victim reimbursed by insurance suffered no economic detriment for restitution purposes)
State v. Berlinger, 954 N.E.2d 1290 (Ohio Ct. App.) (concurrence noted prior district precedent allowing restitution where insurance reimbursement does not eliminate victim’s economic loss)