STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. DONTONYO JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL NO. C-140573
TRIAL NO. B-1404587B
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
September 16, 2015
[Cite as State v. Jackson, 2015-Ohio-3742.]
Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed
Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, and Josh Thompson, Assistant Public Defender, for Defendant-Appellant.
Please note: this case has been removed from the accelerated calendar.
O P I N I O N.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Dontonyo Jackson admitted to breaking into a GameStop store and a RadioShack store and stealing merchandise by smashing through each of the stores’ walls with a sledgehammer. He pleaded guilty to two counts of breaking and entering, and to possessing criminal tools. Following the completion of a presentence investigation report (“PSI“), the trial court conducted a sentencing hearing and sentenced Jackson to three years of community control, imposed a $250 fine, and ordered Jackson to pay $5777.81 in restitution. This appeal followed.
{¶2} In one assignment of error, Jackson contends that the trial court erred in imposing $1,982.35 of the restitution award because that amount was not an “economic loss” under
{¶3} It is within a trial court‘s discretion to order restitution in any amount consistent with the victim‘s economic loss, and we review the trial court‘s judgment for an abuse of that discretion. State v. Lalain, 136 Ohio St.3d 248, 2013-Ohio-3093, 994 N.E.2d 423, paragraph one of the syllabus; Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983);
{¶4} At Jackson‘s sentencing hearing, GameStop requested $4,415.67 in restitution. Of this amount, $1,982.35 was attributed to payments that GameStop had made to security personnel hired to guard against further break-ins after GameStop had rebuilt the wall Jackson had demolished, but before the cement in the
{¶5} Before turning to the merits of Jackson‘s appeal, we note that a trial court ordinarily is required to conduct an evidentiary hearing in cases where the amount of restitution is disputed.
{¶6} At the sentencing hearing, Jackson essentially contended that the security-guard costs were not proximately caused by his crime. He makes a similar argument on appeal. The term, “proximate cause,” is often difficult to define as applied to the facts of a particular case. Clinger v. Duncan, 166 Ohio St. 216, 222, 141 N.E.2d 156 (1957). But “it is generally true that, where an original act is wrongful * * * and in a natural and continuous sequence produces a result which would not have taken place without the act, proximate cause is established.” Id.
{¶7} In this case, we find that the security-guard costs were proximately caused by Jackson‘s crime. GameStop‘s wall repair was not complete until the cement in the wall had set. Guarding the store against further break-ins until the wall that Jackson had demolished was fixed was an act naturally and continuously flowing from Jackson‘s crime. And the PSI contained a receipt showing that GameStop hired the security guards at a cost of $1,982.35. Under these circumstances, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering $1982.35 in restitution.
{¶9} Jackson‘s sole assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
CUNNINGHAM, P.J., and MOCK, J., concur.
Please note: The court has recorded its own entry this date.