STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. RAVEN GORDON, Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL NO. C-170660
TRIAL NO. 16CRB-32727
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
September 21, 2018
[Cite as State v. Gordon, 2018-Ohio-3786.]
Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Municipal Court
Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: September 21, 2018
Paula Boggs Muething, City Solicitor, Natalia Harris, City Prosecutor, and Christopher Liu, Appellate Director, for Plaintiff-Appellee,
Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, and Joshua A. Thompson, Assistant Public Defender, for Defendant-Appellant.
{¶1} Following her plea of no contest, Raven Gordon was convicted of criminal damaging and sentenced to 90 days in jail, with 82 days suspended, and two years of community control. In addition, she was ordered to pay a fine, court costs, and $5,897 in restitution to the owner of the car that she damaged.
{¶2} Gordon now appeals. In a single assignment of error, she argues that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering restitution to a victim of criminal damaging for the cost to repair damage to her car when the cost to repair “far exceeded the car‘s value.”
{¶3} At the hearing on restitution, the victim testified that Gordon keyed deep scratches into her car‘s exterior, including an obscene term on the car‘s trunk. The victim took her car to three body shops and was told that the car would have to be sanded down and repainted. The victim presented repair estimates in the amounts of $5,350, $5,448, and $6,894. In response, Gordon submitted a Kelley Blue Book website printout that indicated a $3,290 trade-in value for the same model of car, with a trade-in-value range of $2,593 to $3,986. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court averaged the victim‘s three repair estimates and ordered restitution in the amount of $5,897.
{¶4}
{¶5} “Economic loss” is defined in
any economic detriment suffered by a victim as a direct and proximate result of the commission of an offense and includes any loss of income due to lost time at work because of any injury caused to the victim, and any property loss, medical cost, or funeral expense incurred as a result of the commission of the offense. “Economic loss” does not include non-economic loss or any punitive or exemplary damages.
{¶6} If the defendant disputes the amount of restitution, the court is required to hold an evidentiary hearing, and the victim must prove the amount of restitution by a preponderance of the evidence.
{¶7} In rendering its decision, the court noted that the victim had obtained estimates from three body shops, each of which was identified as a qualified collision repair company, and remarked that there was no reason for the court to doubt the credibility of the estimates. Gordon presented evidence of the Kelley Blue Book trade-in value for a similar car model, which was less than the repair cost. Gordon presented no evidence, however, of the Blue Book private sale value or any other retail value, and thus there was no evidence to indicate that the retail value of the car was less than the repair estimates. We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the economic loss to the victim was the cost of repair and in
Judgment affirmed.
MOCK, P.J., and DETERS, J., concur.
Please note:
The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this opinion.