State v. WilliamsState v. Williams
Decided: November 1, 2013
* * * * *
Thomas L. Stierwalt, Sandusky County Prosecuting Attorney, and Norman P. Solze, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
John A. Brikmanis, for appellant.
* * * * *
JENSEN, J.
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment of the Sandusky County Court of Common Pleas, in which appellant Jeremy M. Williams was sentenced on one count of trafficking in cocaine in violation of
THE [TRIAL] COURT ERRED WHEN IT ORDERED APPELLANT TO PAY RESTITUTION IN THE AMOUNT OF $1700 TO REIMBURSE THE OHIO BCI FOR MONEY USED TO PURCHASE COCAINE.
{¶ 3} The relevant facts to the issue raised on appeal are as follows. On July 18, 2012, appellant was indicted on two counts of trafficking in cocaine in violation of
{¶ 4} On January 23, 2013, the trial court sentenced appellant to 18 months in the custody and control of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections and further ordered him to pay the costs of his court-appointed attorney, as well as court costs. The court also ordered appellant to pay restitution in the amount of $1,700 to the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation (BCI) for funds BCI expended pursuing drug buys with appellant. Appellant‘s counsel objected to the court‘s order of restitution at the time of sentencing.
{¶ 5} Appellant‘s sole assignment of error focuses on the validity of granting restitution to a law enforcement agency for funds the agency expended during drug buys {¶ 6} Ohio appellate courts review restitution-based errors under the plain error doctrine. State v. Gears, 135 Ohio App.3d 297, 299, 733 N.E.2d 683, 685 (6th Dist.1999), citing State v. Marbury, 104 Ohio App.3d 179, 181, 661 N.E.2d 271, 272 (8th Dist.1995). The “imposition of a sentence not authorized by statute constitutes plain error.” State v. Stewart, 3d Dist. Wyandot No. 16-08-11, 2008-Ohio-5823, ¶ 7, citing State v. Rohda, 135 Ohio App.3d 21, 25, 732 N.E.2d 1018, 1020 (3d Dist.1999). {¶ 7} ” {¶ 8} Black‘s Law Dictionary defines a “victim” as “[a] person harmed by a crime, tort, or other wrong.” Black‘s Law Dictionary (9th Ed.2009). In certain circumstances, a government entity may be considered a victim under {¶ 9} In Collins, the trial court ordered the defendant to pay $5,855 in restitution to the Norwalk Police Department as part of sentencing. Collins at ¶ 52. On appeal, this court stated that although the trial court may have awarded “restitution to the police department for its expenses in using a confidential informant and making the buys[,] * * * such expenses do not render the police department a ‘victim’ to which restitution is authorized.” Id. {¶ 10} In its brief, the state concedes that the trial court erred when it “ordered appellant to pay restitution for monies used to make buys,” citing this court‘s decision in Collins as its rationale. {¶ 11} Appellant‘s sole assignment of error is well-taken. The judgment of the Sandusky County Court of Common Pleas is reversed as to the order of restitution but is affirmed in all other respects. This matter is remanded to the trial court to enter a judgment consistent with this decision. Appellee is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to Judgment reversed in part and affirmed in part. C.A. No. S-13-007 A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Arlene Singer, P.J. JUDGE Stephen A. Yarbrough, J. JUDGE James D. Jensen, J. JUDGE CONCUR. This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of Ohio‘s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court‘s web site at: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/?source=6.