State v. Willis, 2012 Ohio 294

Willis pled guilty to felonious assault in Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas and was sentenced to two years with $20,352.08 restitution to the victim.
Defendant’s sole assignment of error contends the restitution order was abusive for failing to consider his present and future ability to pay.
R.C. 2929.18(A)(1) authorizes restitution as a financial sanction and requires the amount to not exceed victim’s economic loss, determined at sentencing.
When imposing restitution, the court may rely on the victim, offender, PSI, estimates, receipts, and other information, and a restitution hearing is required only if disputed.
R.C. 2919.19(B)(6) requires consideration of the offender’s present and future ability to pay, though the statute does not specify exact factors for a hearing.
The trial court reviewed the PSI and heard from the victim and defense; it did not expressly make findings on ability to pay and questioned future payment as speculative.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the restitution order abused discretion for failing to consider ability to pay	Willis argues inability to pay due to indigency and incarceration.	Willis contends the court should waive or reduce restitution given future income uncertainty.	Yes; restitution must be reviewed for present/future ability to pay.

State v. Twitty, 2011-Ohio-4725 (2d Dist. Montgomery No. 24296 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011)) (assembles present/future ability to pay need not have a formal hearing)
State v. Ratliff, 2011-Ohio-2313 (2d Dist. Ohio) (PSI may inform ability to pay)
State v. Miller, 2010-Ohio-4760 (2d Dist. Clark No. 08-CA-90) (requires consideration of ability to pay though no express findings required)
State v. Ayers, 2005-Ohio-44 (2d Dist. Greene No. 04-CA-34) (recognizes lack of mandatory express findings but requires consideration)