State v. Waiters, 191 Ohio App. 3d 720

Defendant-appellant Charles Waiters was charged by grand jury with nine counts including theft, having a weapon while under a disability, and seven counts of tampering with records, alleging theft from CMHA between $5,000 and $100,000.
Waiters pleaded guilty to theft, an amended count of attempt to tamper with records, and having a weapon while under a disability; other counts were dismissed.
At plea, the prosecutor stated, and defense agreed, that restitution of $14,674.23 would be paid; Waiters signed a plea agreement acknowledging restitution of that amount.
At sentencing, the court stated restitution would be $14,674.28 (and later $14,674.23 in the judgment), with a potential adjustment after review with the victim.
The PSI indicated the $14,674.23 amount was the subsidy paid to CMHA by HUD for Stay’s residence; CMHA did not provide a victim-impact statement.
The court ultimately ordered $14,674.23 in restitution, but the record lacked competent evidence linking that amount to the victim’s actual economic loss; HUD, not CMHA, appeared to bear the loss.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the restitution amount had an adequate evidentiary basis.	Waiters argued the amount lacked competent, credible evidence tying it to actual loss.	Waiters contends the restitution amount was derived from the plea agreement and PSI without adequate support.	Restitution amount unsupported by competent evidence; requires reversal and remand for evidentiary determination.
Whether an adequate restitution hearing was held when the amount was disputed.	Waiters contends the restitution amount was disputed and thus required a hearing.	Waiters acknowledges the amount but argues the court should have conducted a hearing on the amount when disputed.	Evidentiary hearing required; remand for hearing on the appropriate restitution amount and recipient.

Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse of discretion requires unreasonable, arbitrary conduct)
State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151 (1980) (restraint on restitution and related sentencing principles)
State v. Warner, 55 Ohio St.3d 31 (1990) (restitution must be based on economic loss and supported by evidence)
State v. Williams, 34 Ohio App.3d 33 (1986) (proper relationship between restitution and loss; no windfalls)
State v. Marbury, 104 Ohio App.3d 179 (1995) (offsets and mitigation must be considered in calculating restitution)
State v. Webb, 173 Ohio St.3d 547 (2007) (documentary or testimonial evidence required to prove loss)
State v. Bowman, 181 Ohio App.3d 407 (2009) (restitution must reflect actual economic loss; double recovery prohibited)