State v. White, 2021 Ohio 3284

Robert L. White (73), an accountant, solicited over $1.3 million from >80 clients/friends from ~2011 onward to fund promised tax-service franchises but did not use funds as represented or repay investors.
Indicted on 25 counts (including securities fraud, misrepresentation, money laundering, and a RICO count); pleaded guilty to six counts of misrepresentation in sale of securities in exchange for dismissal of remaining counts.
Plea agreement acknowledged the state would seek prison and that restitution would include victims from all original counts. A PSI was prepared and sentencing set months later to allow partial restitution.
At sentencing victims described severe economic harm; defense presented character witnesses and argued White intended to repay and should receive community control to continue repayment.
The court ordered verified restitution of $1,307,213.11 (excluding promised interest), found limited remorse, and imposed six consecutive 18-month prison terms (aggregate 9 years).
White appealed, raising (1) failure to consider ability to pay restitution; (2) consecutive sentences unsupported by record; and (3) ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

Issue	White's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by not considering White's present/future ability to pay before ordering restitution	Trial court committed plain error by failing to consider ability to pay under R.C. 2929.19(B)(5)	Marsy’s Law (Ohio Const.) entitles victims to "full and timely" restitution, making consideration of defendant's ability to pay irrelevant	Marsy’s Law supersedes R.C. 2929.19(B)(5) to the extent it would allow reduction; no error in failing to consider ability to pay
Whether consecutive prison terms were unsupported/disproportionate	Consecutive sentences are disproportionate to White's danger to the public given age and lack of prior record	Court found consecutive terms necessary to punish/protect public given prolonged, deceptive scheme and severe, widespread harm	Record supports the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings; consecutive sentences affirmed
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to restitution consideration and for stipulating to PSI restitution figures	Counsel’s failures were deficient and prejudicial	Objection to failure to consider ability to pay would be futile (Marsy’s Law); stipulation to verifiable PSI figures was strategic and amounts were supported	No deficient performance causing prejudice; ineffective-assistance claim rejected

State ex rel. Price v. Huwe, 105 Ohio St.3d 304 (1922) (constitutional provision supersedes conflicting statute)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance standard)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (1989) (Ohio framing of ineffective-assistance analysis)
State v. Madrigal, 87 Ohio St.3d 378 (2000) (failure to satisfy either Strickland prong is fatal)
State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016) (appellate standard for reviewing felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08)
State v. Davis, 159 Ohio St.3d 31 (2020) (reaffirming ineffective-assistance standards)