2021 Ohio 2814
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Defendant Thomas E. Williams pled guilty to attempted receiving stolen property (5th‑degree felony) and OVI (misdemeanor) after crashing a car that dispatch identified as stolen from his mother.
- At the plea, the prosecutor stated Williams’s blood alcohol was .242 and the vehicle belonged to victim Passion Longmire‑Ware.
- A victim impact statement in the record listed itemized losses totaling $7,410 (including $6,700 for “my car”); no insurance or victim‑reparations payments were reported.
- At sentencing the court imposed $7,410 restitution to the victim; defense counsel immediately objected to the amount and noted lack of receipts/evidence.
- The court said it did not have the victim impact statement, did not hold a separate restitution hearing after the objection, and proceeded with sentencing; the entry ordered restitution without a hearing.
- On appeal the Eleventh District held the trial court was required to hold a restitution hearing after the objection and reversed and remanded the restitution order as contrary to law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by ordering $7,410 restitution without holding a hearing after counsel objected | The restitution amount was supported by the victim impact statement and thus by competent, credible evidence; defendant had opportunity to be heard at sentencing | Counsel objected to amount; R.C. 2929.18(A)(1) mandates a restitution hearing when offender disputes the amount; defendant couldn’t view the victim statement pre‑sentencing under local rule | Court reversed and remanded: restitution order contrary to law because statutory hearing was required after objection |
| Whether the trial court’s failure to hold a restitution hearing constituted plain error | Any error was harmless or not plain because record contained victim’s itemization | Failure to hold required hearing is reversible error once objected to; plain‑error claim is moot if order is reversed as contrary to law | Moot (court reversed on statutory‑error ground) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ciresi, 162 N.E.3d 846 (Ohio App. 11th Dist. 2020) (explains appellate standard of review under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) for sentences including restitution)
- State v. Lalain, 994 N.E.2d 423 (Ohio 2013) (mandates a restitution hearing under R.C. 2929.18(A)(1) when the amount is disputed)
- State v. Raines, 53 N.E.3d 893 (Ohio App. 10th Dist. 2015) (reiterates that an objection by offender triggers statutory right to evidentiary restitution hearing)