State v. Wickline, 2011 Ohio 3004

Wickline pled guilty to a reduced misdemeanor theft (first-degree) after the State dismissed the underlying felony; the plea expanded restitution terms.
The victim Zimmerman valued missing farm equipment at $30,891.90, based on catalog and sale comparisons, and submitted a claim to his insurer.
Insurance contributed approximately $20,254.69 after a deductible, with Zimmerman initially seeking ~$30,891.90 but receiving less via settlement.
The trial court ordered restitution totaling $30,891.90: $10,637.21 to Zimmerman and $20,254.69 to the insurer, then filed entries reflecting restitution and sentences.
Wickline argued the insurance-restitution and the overall amount exceeded what the offense allowed and was not supported by competent evidence.
On appeal, the Third District reversed, vacating the restitution order and remanding for proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Restitution to insurer improper	Wickline asserts insurance restitution is not authorized by statute.	Wickline contends the insurer payment is outside the statute and plea limits.	Restitution to insurer improper; vacated.
Restitution amount exceeds offense	Proposed restitution aligns with damages for the dismissed counts.	Amount should reflect only damages from convicted offense.	Amount exceeded the offense’s allowed restitution; remanded to adjust.
Limit of restitution given plea	Plea allowed broader restitution than $500.	But plea did not authorize unlimited restitution; capped by agreement.	Restitution must be within negotiated scope; excess improper.
Support by competent evidence	Evidence supported the claimed damages.	Evidence and calculations were not properly aligned with the conviction.	Evidence insufficient to sustain the ordered amount; remand for proper determination.

State v. Portentoso, 173 Ohio App.3d 297 (2007-Ohio-5490) (restraint on restitution to non-victim recipients)
State v. Didion, 173 Ohio App.3d 130 (2007-Ohio-4494) (restitution limitations under amended statute)
State v. Kreischer, 109 Ohio St.3d 391 (2006-Ohio-2706) (pre-amendment restitution to third parties)
State v. Perkins, 190 Ohio App.3d 328 (2010-Ohio-5058) (restitution under 2929.18; designated recipients)
State v. Williams, 2004-Ohio-2801 (2004) (restitution limited to actual economic loss; convicted offense only)
State v. Hafer, 144 Ohio App.3d 345 (2001-Ohio-2412) (restitution for non-convicted offenses generally improper)
State v. Hooks, 135 Ohio App.3d 746 (2000-Ohio-3513) (restitution limitations per underlying offenses)
State v. Rosebrook, 2006-Ohio-734 (2006-Ohio-734) (dissent on restitution for dismissed counts)
State v. Weatherholtz, 2005-Ohio-5269 (2005-Ohio-5269) (affirming restitution tied to dismissed counts in plea)
State v. Strickland, 2011-Ohio-493 (2011) (plea agreements and restitution scope; some limits)
In re Khary Ingram, 2002 Ohio 806 (2002) (statutory limits on restitution in plea contexts)
Brecksville v. Cook, 75 Ohio St.3d 53 (1996) (statutory construction against the State)