[Cite as State v. Pulley, 2020-Ohio-6898.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

BUTLER COUNTY 

STATE OF OHIO, 

 Appellee, 

 - vs - 

JACOB D. PULLEY, 

 Appellant. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

CASE NO. CA2019-12-200 

O P I N I O N 

12/28/2020 

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM HAMILTON MUNICIPAL COURT 

Case No. 19CRB02720-A 

Neal D. Schuett, City of Hamilton Prosecuting Attorney, 345 High Street, Hamilton, Ohio 

45011, for appellee 

Christopher P. Frederick, 300 High Street, Suite 550, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for appellant 

 HENDRICKSON, P.J. 

{¶1} Appellant, Jacob D. Pulley, appeals from the decision of the Hamilton 

Municipal Court ordering him to pay $1,389.80 in restitution following his conviction for 

criminal damaging. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the court's restitution order. 

{¶2} On March 22, 2019, appellant was charged by complaint with criminal 

damaging in violation of R.C. 2909.06, a misdemeanor of the second degree. On 
Butler CA2019-12-200 

- 2 - 

September 3, 2019, appellant pled no contest to the charge, thereby admitting to the 

following facts: 

[O]n or about February 17, 2019, Jacob Pulley caused damage 

to the bathroom door of Andrew Grenier and Kasey O'Donnel's 

home, also damage to the kitchen cabinets. Said acts occurred 

in Ross Township – Ross Township, Butler County, Ohio. * * * 

Mr. Pulley threw an open bottle of red hand sanitizer all over the 

freshly painted white kitchen cabinets, ruining them. Then went 

upstairs, punched two holes in the bathroom door. 

{¶3} The trial court accepted appellant's no contest plea and found him guilty of 

criminal damaging. The court then turned to sentencing and the issue of restitution. 

Appellant stipulated to $269.80 as restitution for damage to the bathroom door. However, 

the amount of restitution for damage to the kitchen cabinets was disputed. Grenier and 

O'Donnel sought $1,120 in damages for repairs to their cabinets. According to Grenier, the 

cabinets had recently been painted white and the red-dye hand sanitizer appellant threw 

"soaked in immediately" and was unable to be removed. The cabinets, therefore, had to 

be scraped clean and repainted. Grenier stated that eight different cabinets had been 

damaged by the red-dyed hand sanitizer appellant threw. O'Donnel believed there were "at 

least eight to ten" doors that had been damaged. 

{¶4} Appellant disputed that eight or more cabinets had been damaged by his 

actions. He argued that photographs taken at the scene showed damage only to "two 

double cabinets." He further disputed that he should be responsible for paying for a 

polyurethane topcoat that had been put over top of the repaired and repainted cabinets, 

contending that the polyurethane topcoat had not been on the white cabinets at the time he 

threw the hand sanitizer. During the hearing, appellant asked an investigating officer, 

Detective Johnson, how many cabinets were damaged. Johnson indicated she had not 

responded to the scene, but someone else "was there" who might be able to answer. This 
Butler CA2019-12-200 

- 3 - 

person, who was unidentified in the record, recalled four cabinets being damaged.1

{¶5} Due to the dispute over cabinet damages, the trial court continued sentencing 

and set the matter for a restitution hearing. The restitution hearing commenced on 

September 26, 2019. At this time, defense counsel referenced a restitution memorandum 

that he had filed with the court the day before the hearing. In the memorandum, appellant 

took issue with a $1,120 estimate Grenier and O'Donnel received from N-Hance 

Revolutionary Wood Renewal ("N-Hance") for the repair of 16 kitchen cabinets and 

challenged whether he should have to pay for the application of the polyurethane topcoat. 

As neither the state nor the court had seen the memorandum before the restitution hearing, 

the court continued the matter to give everyone time to review the filing. 

{¶6} The hearing reconvened on October 17, 2019. At that time, Grenier and 

O'Donnel informed the court that 16 of their 24 kitchen cabinets had been damaged by 

appellant and had to be repainted. Grenier and O'Donnel presented a receipt from N-Hance 

showing that 16 cabinets were cleaned, sanded, and repainted at an amount of $70 per 

cabinet, for a total of $1,120. Grenier and O'Donnel also presented a receipt from the 

original project – when they paid to have all 24 cabinets painted and finished prior to 

appellant splashing red hand sanitizer all over them. That invoice indicated Grenier and 

 

1. When discussing damages at the September 3, 2019 hearing, the following discussion took place: 

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Well, I think I would ask Detective Johnson whether 

that is the case or not, because she investigated the crime. 

THE COURT: Well, you can ask her, but I don't think they're lying about how 

many of their cabinets got splashed, but you can go ahead and ask her if you 

like. 

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: How many cabinets were damaged. 

DETECTIVE JOHNSON: I did not respond to the scene. (TAPE 

INAUDIBLE). He was there. 

THE COURT: Do you know how many? 

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I remember four, Your Honor. 
Butler CA2019-12-200 

- 4 - 

O'Donnel paid $130 per cabinet, with a 7.00 percent discount, for a total of $2,901.60 for 

work on all 24 cabinets. 

{¶7} Appellant did not present any witnesses to rebut Grenier's and O'Donnel's 

assertions that 16 cabinets were damaged and had to be repainted. He again referred to 

photographs taken at the scene, which he argued showed damage to only two double 

cabinets. He also argued O'Donnel and Grenier's claim about the amount of cabinets 

damaged consistently changed and that law enforcement had indicated only two cabinets 

had been damaged. 

{¶8} The trial court ultimately rejected appellant's assertion that O'Donnel's and 

Grenier's claims had changed, stating, "You know what, I don’t think they've changed their 

story at all. They've been here, I don't think they've said anything other than exactly what 

happened." The court concluded that O'Donnel and Grenier had established damages to 

16 kitchen cabinets in the amount of $1,120. The trial court therefore ordered appellant to 

pay a total of $1,389.80 in restitution for damages to the bathroom door and kitchen 

cabinets. The court then sentenced appellant to 90 days in jail, with all 90 days stayed, and 

to two years of community control. 

{¶9} Appellant timely appealed, raising the following as his sole assignment of 

error: 

{¶10} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT ORDERED [APPELLANT] TO PAY A 

TOTAL OF ONE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED EIGHTY-NINE AND 80/100 ($1,389.80) 

DOLLARS IN RESTITUTION. 

{¶11} Appellant concedes the order of $269.80 in restitution for damages caused to 

the bathroom door was proper but argues that the court erred when it ordered him to pay 

$1,120 in restitution for damages to the kitchen cabinets. Appellant contends the economic 

loss to the kitchen cabinets was not determined to a reasonable degree of certainty as there 
Butler CA2019-12-200 

- 5 - 

were conflicting statements about how many cabinets were damaged and the invoice from 

N-Hance failed to set forth an itemized cost for each of the services it performed, such as 

cleaning, sanding, painting, and applying a polyurethane topcoat. Appellant maintains that 

he should only be responsible for repairs to two cabinets and that the damage award should 

not include any sum for the application of a polyurethane topcoat. 

{¶12} "Regarding financial sanctions for a misdemeanor offense, R.C. 

2929.28(A)(1) states that the trial court may impose one or more financial sanctions, 

including, but not limited to, restitution by the offender to the victim of the offender's crime * 

* *, in an amount based on the victim's economic loss." State v. Eller, 197 Ohio App.3d 

738, 2012-Ohio-546, ¶ 12 (12th Dist.), citing R.C. 2929.28(A)(1). If a court imposes 

restitution, the court must determine the amount to be paid by the offender and may base 

the amount of restitution it orders on an amount recommended by the victim, the offender, 

a presentence investigation report, estimates, or receipts indicating the cost of repairing or 

replacing property, and any other information, provided that the amount the court orders as 

restitution does not exceed the amount of economic loss suffered by the victim as a direct 

and proximate result of the offender's commission of the offense. Id. at ¶ 13; R.C. 

2929.28(A)(1). 

{¶13} "If the court decides to impose restitution, the court must hold an evidentiary 

hearing on restitution if the offender, victim, or survivor disputes the amount of restitution." 

Id. at ¶ 14, citing R.C. 2929.28(A)(1). At that hearing, the victim has the burden to prove by 

a preponderance of the evidence the amount of restitution sought from the offender. Id. An 

appellate court reviews a trial court's order of restitution in misdemeanor cases under an 

abuse-of-discretion standard of review. Id. at ¶ 16; State v. Powell, 12th Dist. Butler No. 

CA2010-09-257, 2011-Ohio-3906, ¶ 10; State v. Guthrie, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-180661, 

2020-Ohio-501, ¶ 15. 
Butler CA2019-12-200 

- 6 - 

{¶14} Contrary to appellant's arguments, the victims in this case proved by a 

preponderance of the evidence that they were entitled to $1,120 for repairs to their kitchen 

cabinets. By pleading no contest, appellant admitted to throwing "an open bottle of red 

hand sanitizer all over the freshly painted white kitchen cabinets, ruining them." Through 

their statements and the estimate from N-Hance, Grenier and O'Donnel provided 

competent, credible evidence establishing that 16 of their 24 cabinets were ruined by the 

hand sanitizer and the company hired to repair the damage, N-Hance, charged $1,120 to 

return the cabinets to their original condition. The fact that the N-Hance estimate did not 

spell out how much of the $1,200 was apportioned to cleaning, sanding, painting, or 

applying a topcoat finish did not make the estimate unreliable. The estimate provided that 

the process of repairing the cabinets cost $70 for each cabinet, for a total of $1,120. This 

was significantly below the $130 per cabinet Grenier and O'Donnel paid when they originally 

had the cabinets remodeled and painted. 

{¶15} "R.C. 2929.28 permits the admission of 'estimates or receipts indicating the 

cost of repairing or replacing the property.' There is no indication the statute requires the 

preparer of the estimate to be present or cross-examined." Powell, 2011-Ohio-3906 at ¶ 9. 

The N-Hance estimate, if found credible by the court, was a sufficient basis for the court 

issue the restitution award. 

{¶16} Furthermore, though appellant maintains only two double cabinets were 

harmed by his actions, his claims are contradicted by the N-Hance estimate and Grenier's 

and O'Donnel's representations to the court that 16 of their cabinets were damaged. 

Throughout the record, there appeared to be different manners in which the parties referred 

to the kitchen cabinets – sometimes the cabinets were referred to as single cabinets, other 

times as "double cabinets," and at times the cabinets were referred to by the number of 

doors they contained. The trial court considered the different manners in which the cabinets 
Butler CA2019-12-200 

- 7 - 

were described, asked clarifying questions of Grenier and O'Donnel, and ultimately 

determined that "there were a total of 16 cabinets, we've previously referred to them, I think, 

as eight, but a total of 16, and I'm finding that they were all damaged and that it was part of 

what the Complaint said, which was damage to the kitchen cabinets, and it's a direct 

economic loss related to this incident." In finding that there was a total of 16 cabinets 

damaged by appellant's actions, the court was entitled to rely on Grenier's and O'Donnel's 

statements. 

{¶17} Finally, with respect to the polyurethane topcoat, Grenier and O'Donnel 

established that application of the topcoat to the damaged cabinets was necessary to fully 

repair the cabinets. Though appellant submitted a memorandum in which he challenged 

whether the damaged cabinets had previously received a polyurethane topcoat, the trial 

court was not persuaded by appellant's sentencing memorandum or arguments. Rather, 

relying on Grenier's and O'Donnel's statements and the N-Hance estimate, the court found 

application of the polyurethane topcoat was part of what was required to return the cabinets 

to their original condition. Based on the record before us, we cannot say the court abused 

its discretion in reaching this decision or in ordering appellant to pay $1,120 for damages 

to the cabinets. 

{¶18} Accordingly, we find that Grenier and O'Donnel proved by a preponderance 

of the evidence the amount of restitution sought. The trial court did not err in ordering 

appellant to pay a total of $1,389.80 in restitution for the damages he caused to Grenier's 

and O'Donnel's kitchen cabinets and bathroom door. Appellant's assignment of error is 

overruled. 

{¶19} Judgment affirmed. 

 S. POWELL and RINGLAND, JJ., concur.