State v. Wilson, 2016 Ohio 7650

Phyllis J. Wilson, a long‑time City of Niles employee, admitted taking $142,272 in city funds over time and losing the money gambling. She pled guilty to theft in office under R.C. 2921.41(A)(1).
The plea agreement noted the State would seek full restitution and garnishment of her public retirement checks.
At sentencing the court imposed five years community control, ordered Wilson to pay full restitution of $142,272, ordered forfeiture of her entire monthly Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) benefit until restitution was paid, and required her to find and maintain new employment.
Wilson argued on appeal the trial court erred by ordering forfeiture of her entire retirement check without adequately considering her ability to pay and her indigency/age/retirement status.
The trial court relied on the mandatory restitution provisions of R.C. 2921.41(C)(2)(a) (the theft‑in‑office statute) and the statutory authority to withhold retirement benefits absent a showing of good cause.
The appellate court affirmed, finding the statute mandates full restitution for public officials and that the record (PSI: age 62, H.S. diploma, prior steady employment, physical health described as fair) supported the court’s orders and that Wilson had not shown good cause to retain benefits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court could order full restitution and garnishment/forfeiture of a public retirement benefit under R.C. 2921.41 after a theft‑in‑office conviction	State: R.C. 2921.41 mandates restitution for all actual loss and permits withholding of retirement benefits to satisfy restitution	Wilson: Trial court failed to consider her present/future ability to pay; indigent, retired, age 62 — should be allowed to retain at least part of monthly PERS benefit	Affirmed: R.C. 2921.41(C)(2)(a) requires full restitution; court may order withholding of retirement benefits absent showing of good cause and record supported ability to work and obligation to pay
Whether the court abused discretion by ordering Wilson to obtain and maintain new employment to make restitution	State: Employment order reasonable to ensure additional income for restitution payments	Wilson: She is retired and indigent; cannot sustain employment	Affirmed: PSI information supported finding she could work and the order aimed to provide separate income to sustain herself and pay restitution