2020 Ohio 4943
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background:
- Victim J.P., a 50-year-old college instructor with cerebral palsy, hired Nicole Young in 2014 as a paid caregiver and gave Young access to her bank card and PIN to withdraw weekly cash payments.
- J.P. typically withdrew $300 weekly (giving Young $200 and keeping $100), but family review in 2018 revealed many more ATM withdrawals and a substantial unexplained decline in account balance.
- Young admitted to stealing from J.P.; she was indicted in January 2019 on theft from a person in a protected class and pled guilty in June 2019 to the lesser-included offense of fourth-degree felony theft.
- At an August 5, 2019 restitution hearing the state introduced J.P.’s bank statements and a spreadsheet; the trial court’s August 7 order found J.P.’s economic loss was $49,114 (including $10 ATM fees).
- The sentencing journal entry (Aug. 16, 2019) ordered restitution of $49,014 (apparently a $100 clerical error); the court sentenced Young to three years’ community control.
- On appeal, Young challenged the restitution as unsupported and insufficiently explained; the Sixth District affirmed but remanded for a nunc pro tunc correction to the restitution amount of $49,114.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the restitution order was sufficiently explained and not an abuse of discretion | State/J.P.: trial court made detailed findings and credibility determinations supporting restitution | Young: court failed to explain how it calculated losses and ignored disputed evidence | Court: Affirmed — trial court’s August 7 order adequately explained findings and credibility; review governed by R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) |
| Whether competent, credible evidence supported the restitution amount | State/J.P.: bank statements plus J.P.’s testimony proved $49,114 loss by preponderance | Young: payments increased to $300/week, other caregivers and cash grocery/gas payments should reduce loss | Court: Affirmed — bank records and J.P.’s testimony provided competent, credible evidence; award not clearly and convincingly contrary to law |
Key Cases Cited
- Collins, 41 N.E.3d 899 (establishes that restitution review for a felony sentence is under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b), i.e., whether the order is contrary to law)
- Becraft, 89 N.E.3d 218 (reiterates that restitution as part of a felony sentence is reviewed for whether it is clearly and convincingly contrary to law)