STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DOUGLAS C. CHANEY, Defendant-Appellant.
CASE NO. CA2017-07-118
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO WARREN COUNTY
2/12/2018
[Cite as State v. Chaney, 2018-Ohio-552.]
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. 16CR32454
David P. Fornshell, Warren County Prosecuting Attorney, Kirsten Brandt, 520 Justice Drive, Lebanon, Ohio 45036, for plaintiff-appellee
Lisa M. Wells, 401 Madison Avenue, Covington, Kentucky 41011, for defendant-аppellant
O
S. POWELL, P.J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Douglas C. Chaney, appeals from the decision of the Warren County Court of Common Pleas ordering him to pay restitution in the amount of $83,783.96 to Procter & Gamble after he pled guilty to one count of grand theft.1 For the reasons outlined below, we affirm.
{¶ 2} On January 3, 2017, the Warren County Grаnd Jury returned an indictment charging Chaney with one count of grand theft in violation of
{¶ 3} On January 20, 2017, Chaney was arraigned and subsequently released on bond after entering a plea of not guilty. Approximately two months later, on March 9, 2017, Chaney appeared before the trial court and entered a guilty plea to the one count of grand theft as charged. After conducting the necessary Crim.R. 11 plea colloquy, the trial court accepted Chaney‘s guilty plea and scheduled the matter for a sentencing hearing. The trial court then stated, as it relates to the issue of restitution and the need for a restitution hearing, the following:
We had a discussion about what the restitution should be in the case. There appears to be a dispute about what the restitution should be, which means we may have to have a hearing. If we have two sets of numbers, Mr. Chaney that the sides present to me, normally that‘s how it works and I just either pick between the numbers or pick my own number regarding restitution, but it may be in this case, that we have to have a hearing on the issue of restitution, which does not really affect your sentence in terms of what kind of community control sanctions that you receive but the law in the State of Ohio says that I have to make restitution part of the sentence so we will continue the sentencing if necessary in progress, if we have to have a longer restitution hearing sometime in excess of the time allotted * * *.
{¶ 4} On April 19, 2017, after accepting sentencing memorandum from both parties, the trial court held a restitution hearing to determine the proper amount of restitution Chaney owed to Procter & Gamble, if any. At this hearing, the state submitted a binder to the trial court labeled Exhibit 1 that contained receipts and account records dating April 24, 2012 through March 4, 2016 that showed Chaney had netted a grand total of $83,783.96 by selling the hundreds of items he had stolen from Procter & Gamblе to buyers over the internet. Chaney stipulated to the authenticity of the receipts and account records contained within Exhibit 1, raised no objection to the trial court‘s decision to admit the receipts and account records contained within Exhibit 1 as evidence, and otherwise failed to present any opposing evidence contrary to the receipt and account records contained within Exhibit 1 on his own behаlf. Besides raising a legal challenge regarding the amount of restitution he owed, Chaney rested and the trial court took the matter under advisement.
{¶ 5} The following day, the trial court issued a decision finding the proper amount of restitution Chaney owed to Procter & Gamble was the state‘s requested amount of $83,783.96 finding that sum represented the economic loss Procter & Gamble incurred as a result of Chaney‘s actions. Upon entering its decisiоn on restitution, the trial court then sentenced Chaney to serve five years of community control, the conditions of which required Chaney to serve 90 days in jail, pay the restitution order to Procter & Gamble in full, and successfully complete a corrective thinking class. The trial court also ordered Chaney to pay court costs.
{¶ 6} Chaney now appeals from the trial court‘s decision ordering him to pay $83,783.96 in restitution to Procter & Gamble,
{¶ 7} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY ORDERING RESTITUTION IN THE AMOUNT OF $83,783.96.
{¶ 8} In his single assignment of error, Chaney argues the trial court‘s decision was improper in that it was not supported by sufficient evidence. Specifically, Chaney argues that “without an аctual accounting for the replacement cost of the stolen property with new property of like kind and quality, the trial court did not possess the requisite information it needed to order restitution.” We disagree.
{¶ 9} At the outset, we note that Chaney challenges the trial court‘s decision finding the parties improperly directed it to apply
The follоwing criteria shall be used in determining the value of property or services involved in a theft offense:
(1) The value of an heirloom, memento, collector‘s item, antique, museum piece, manuscript, document, record, or other thing that has intrinsic worth to its owner and that either is irreplaceable or is replaceable only on the expenditure of substantial time, effort, or money, is the amount that would compensate the оwner for its loss.
(2) The value of personal effects and household goods, and of materials, supplies, equipment, and fixtures used in the profession, business, trade, occupation, or avocation of its owner, which рroperty is not covered under division (D)(1) of this section and which retains substantial utility for its purpose regardless of its age or condition, is the cost of replacing the property with new property of like kind and quality.
(3) The vаlue of any real or personal property that is not covered under division (D)(1) or (2) of this section, and the value of services, is the fair market value of the property or services. As used in this section, “fair market vаlue” is the money consideration that a buyer would give and a seller would accept for property or services, assuming that the buyer is willing to buy and the seller is willing to sell, that both are fully informed as to all facts material tо the transaction, and that neither is under any compulsion to act.
{¶ 10} According to Chaney, the trial court was required to conduct an analysis pursuant to
{¶ 11} Although the trial court must look to
{¶ 12} Due process “requires that the amount of restitution ordered bear a reasonable relationship to the actual loss suffered by the victim.” State v. Stamper, 12th
Dist. Butler No. CA2009-04-115, 2010-Ohio-1939, ¶ 17. In turn, the amount of restitution that may be awarded to the victim is limited to the “actual loss or damage caused by the offender and must be established to a reasonable degree of certainty.” State v. Collins, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2014-11-135, 2015-Ohio-3710, ¶ 32, citing State v. Dyer, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2005-05-109, 2006-Ohio-3537, ¶ 30. In determining such an award,
{¶ 13} After a thorough review of the record, we find no error in the trial court‘s decision ordering Chaney to pay $83,783.96 in restitution to Procter & Gamble. Although Chaney claims otherwise, the record firmly supports the trial court‘s decision based on the receipts and account records contained within Exhibit 1 – аn exhibit which Chaney stipulated to authenticity and did not otherwise object to its admission at the trial court‘s restitution hearing – showing Chaney netted that exact amount by selling hundreds of items he had stolen from Procter & Gamble to buyers over the internet between April 24, 2012 to March 4, 2016. This is true despite the fact that Procter & Gamble did not submit a victim impact statement to the trial court or conduct an actual accounting of the replacement сost of the hundreds of items Chaney sole. It is well-established that a victim‘s actual economic loss can be established through documentary evidence or testimony, including that of the victim. Geldrich, 2016-Ohio-3400 at ¶ 10.
{¶ 14} In so holding, we once again note that
{¶ 15} Judgment affirmed.
RINGLAND and HENDRICKSON, JJ., concur.