State v. Welch, 2017 Ohio 7887

Welch, the representative payee for her developmentally disabled niece Y.W., was indicted for grand theft and tampering with records arising from Social Security benefits paid for Y.W.
After an initial plea was vacated, Welch pleaded guilty to an amended fifth-degree felony theft count; the state informed the court it would seek approximately $21,682 in restitution (later reduced to $20,482), and Welch acknowledged that understanding at plea.
Social Security investigation showed $33,252 paid to Welch on Y.W.’s behalf; SSA investigator credited Welch with ~$1,200 in actual purchases and noted Welch returned ~$11,000 after the investigation, concluding $20,482 was misappropriated.
Welch’s CPA (Zuber) performed an accounting and identified a $4,755 deficit; Welch produced receipts and testimony suggesting commingling and reimbursements via her sister.
The trial court found the investigators and the mother credible, rejected most receipts as proof benefits were used for Y.W., held the benefits were mishandled, and ordered $20,482 restitution to the SSA; Welch appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether restitution exceeded victim’s actual economic loss	State: $20,482 reflects SSA’s documented loss after credits and returns	Welch: receipts and accounting show only ~$4,755 unaccounted for; many purchases benefitted Y.W.	Court: No abuse of discretion; trial court credited investigators over receipts and had competent evidence supporting $20,482
Whether restitution lacked legal sufficiency	State: investigators’ testimony and SSA records are competent, credible evidence	Welch: CPA’s reconciliation more reliable; receipts prove greater credit	Court: Evidence was legally sufficient; trial court free to accept/reject testimony and receipts were not convincing
Whether restitution was limited by degree/value of theft conviction	State: restitution need not be capped by the degree of theft if parties agreed and restitution reflects loss	Welch: convicted of fifth‑degree theft tied to lower value bracket; restitution exceeds that bracket	Court: Plea agreement and authorities permit restitution based on actual loss despite plea to lesser-degree theft; no abuse of discretion
Whether cumulative errors deprived Welch of a fair proceeding	State: witnesses and procedure proper	Welch: multiple credibility and evidentiary errors cumulatively prejudiced her	Court: No multiple reversible errors; credibility determinations for trier of fact — cumulative‑error doctrine inapplicable

State v. Lalain, 136 Ohio St.3d 248, 2013-Ohio-3093, 994 N.E.2d 423 (discusses restitution limits and relation to offense degree)
State v. Jackson, 141 Ohio St.3d 171, 2014-Ohio-3707, 23 N.E.3d 1023 (cumulative-error framework explained)
State v. DeMarco, 31 Ohio St.3d 191, 509 N.E.2d 1256 (recognizes cumulative-error doctrine)
State v. Madrigal, 87 Ohio St.3d 378, 721 N.E.2d 52 (cumulative error and harmless‑error aggregation)
State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230, 227 N.E.2d 212 (trial court is primary assessor of witness credibility)