State v. Wilson
2015 Ohio 5143
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- In May 2014 Wilson was indicted for aggravated burglary and felonious assault; by plea agreement he pled guilty to an amended count of aggravated assault and the other count was nolled.
- At the plea hearing the court advised Wilson of constitutional rights and penalties for a fourth-degree felony, but did not specifically inform him of restitution.
- The court accepted the plea and ordered a presentence investigation.
- At sentencing the victim testified he suffered a broken jaw, underwent surgery, and had $28,337.86 in uncovered medical bills; Wilson did not dispute the amount and expressed a desire to repay.
- The court imposed 18 months of community control sanctions (120 days jail with 30 suspended; remaining 60 days served on weekends) and ordered restitution of $28,337.86.
- Wilson appealed, arguing (1) the plea was not knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily made because restitution was not disclosed under Crim.R. 11, and (2) restitution lacked sufficient competent evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court’s failure to advise of restitution at plea violated Crim.R. 11(C)(2) so plea was involuntary | State: Crim.R.11 requires substantial compliance; nonconstitutional omissions require showing prejudice | Wilson: Not informed of restitution before plea; plea therefore not knowing/voluntary | Court: No prejudice shown; substantial compliance satisfied; plea upheld |
| Whether restitution order was supported by sufficient, competent evidence | State: R.C.2929.18 allows restitution based on victim testimony, PSI, or other information; victim testified to medical bills | Wilson: Victim testimony conflicted with prosecutor’s comment and lacked documentary corroboration | Court: Victim’s testimony (and written statement offered at sentencing) is competent evidence; restitution within court’s discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (Ohio 2008) (Crim.R.11 nonconstitutional errors require substantial compliance and prejudice showing)
- State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (Ohio 1990) (defines substantial compliance standard for plea colloquy)
- State v. Lalain, 136 Ohio St.3d 248 (Ohio 2013) (trial court has discretion to order restitution but amount limited to victim’s direct economic loss)