[Cite as State v. Willard , 2021-Ohio-2552.] 

## IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT TRUMBULL COUNT Y

STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee,

- v - JEFFREY ALLEN WILLARD, Defendant-Appellant. CASE NO. 2020-T-0040

Criminal Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas

Trial Court No. 2019 CR 001106

O P I N I O N Decided: Jul y 26, 2021 Jud g ment: Affirmed in part, modified in part, and affirmed as modif ied.

Dennis Watkins , Trumbull County Prosecutor; Ashleigh Musick and Ryan J. Sanders , Assistant Prosecutors, Administration Building, Fourth Floor, 1 60 High Street, N.W., Warren, OH 44481 ( For Plaintiff-Appellee )

. Stephen A. Turner , Turner, May & Shepherd, 185 High Street, N.E., Warren, OH 444 81 ( For Defendant-Appellant )

. MARY JANE TRAPP, P.J. {¶1} Appellant, Jeffrey Allen Willard (“Mr. Willard”), appeals his j udgment of conviction from the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas follo wing his guilty pleas to having weapons while under disability, grand theft, grand theft of a motor vehicle, failure to comply with order or signal of police officer, escape, and o bstructing official business. {¶2} Mr. Willard presents two assignments of error, which we address in reverse order.2 Case No. 2020-T-0040 {¶3} In his second assignment of error, Mr. Willard contends he did not enter his guilty pleas knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily because t he trial court did not comply with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a). Specifically, he contends the trial court failed to inform him of potential consecutive prison terms and restitution. {¶4} In his first assignment of error, Mr. Willard contends the tria l court abused its discretion in ordering him to pay restitution in the amount of $4,500 for police officer overtime because there is nothing in the record indicating the amount bears a reasonable relationship to the loss the police department actually suffere d. {¶5} In response to this court’s sua sponte order for supplemental b riefing, Mr. Willard contends under his first assignment of error that the t rial court’s restitution order for officer overtime was contrary to law because the Liberty To wnship Police Department was not a “victim” for the purposes of R.C. 2929.18(A)(1). The state concedes error on the latter issue. {¶6} After a careful review of the record and pertinent law, we find as follows: {¶7} (1) The trial court complied with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) with resp ect to Mr. Willard’s maximum prison terms. While the trial court did not inform Mr. Willard about discretionary, consecutive prison terms, the trial court compli ed with the precedent applying Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) that indicates this is not require d. {¶8} (2) The trial court did not comply with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) by failing to inform Mr. Willard about potential restitution to the Liberty Township Police Department as part of his sentence. However, Mr. Willard has not shown resulting prejudice, i.e., that he would not have pleaded guilty otherwise.3 Case No. 2020-T-0040 {¶9} (3) We clearly and convincingly find that the trial court’s ord er of restitution for officer overtime is contrary to law because the Liberty Tow nship Police Department was not a “victim” that suffered an “economic loss” pursuant to R.C. 2929.18(A)(1). {¶10} Thus, we affirm the trial court’s judgment in part, modify in p art, and affirm as modified. Substantive and Pr ocedural History {¶11} In February 2020, the Trumbull County Grand Jury indicted Mr. W illard on the following six felony counts: having weapons while under di sability, a felony of the third degree, in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(1) and (B) (count 1); grand theft, a felony of the third degree, in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1) and (B)(4) (count 2); grant theft of a motor vehicle, a felony of the fourth degree, in violation of R .C. 2913.02(A)(2) and (B)(5) (count 3); failure to comply with order or signal of police off icer, a felony of the third degree, in violation of R.C. 2921.331(B), (C)(1), and (C)(5)(a) (ii) (count 4); escape, a felony of the third degree, in violation of R.C. 2921.34(A)(1) and (C)(2)(b) (count 5); and obstructing official business, a felony of the fifth degree, in violation of R.C. 2921.31(A) and (B) (count 6). {¶12} Mr. Willard pleaded not guilty to the charges. He subsequently withdrew his former pleas of not guilty and entered written and oral ple as of guilty to all six charges. {¶13} The parties jointly recommended concurrent prison terms of 24 m onths on count 1 (having weapons while und er disability); 24 months on c ount 2 (grand theft); 18 months on count 3 (grand theft of a motor vehicle); 24 months o n count 5 (escape); 24 months on count 6 (obstructing official business); and a mandat ory consecutive prison4 Case No. 2020-T-0040 term of 12 months on count 4 (failure to comply with order or s ignal of police officer), for an aggregate recommended prison term of 36 months. {¶14} Among other notices, the plea agreement stated as follows: {¶15} “I understand that court costs, restitution and other financial sanctions including day fine, standard fine, and reimbursement for the co st of community sanctions may be imposed. {¶16} “I understand that if I am charged with multiple counts, the Co urt could impose consecutive sentences.” Plea Hearing {¶17} The trial court held a plea hearing and engaged in a colloquy w ith Mr. Willard. Mr. Willard indicated that he had read the plea agree ment, had reviewed it with his attorney, and had no questions about it. He also confirmed his understanding that the sentence was not binding on the court and that the court could impose whatever sentence it deemed appropriate within the guidelines. {¶18} The trial court advised Mr. Willa rd of the potential penalties associated with each of the six charges, including the ranges of potential pris on terms, the maximum fines, and whether prison was mandatory. With respect to count 4 (failure to comply with order or signal of police officer), the trial court advised Mr. Willard that any prison term imposed was required to be served consecutive to any other pris on term. Mr. Willard indicated that he understood the trial court’s advisements and entered guilty pleas to all six charges. {¶19} As a factual basis, the state indicated as follows:5 Case No. 2020-T-0040 {¶20} “[O]n or about the date referenced in the indictment, in Trumbu ll County, State of Ohio, officers with the Liberty Township Police Depart ment got dispatched to a bar in their jurisdiction for a drunk and disorderly person. W hen they arrived they came into contact with the Defendant who was, in fact, drunk and dis orderly. They attempted to take him into custody for that offense. He struggled with t hem. He struggled with the arrest. {¶21} “[U]ltimately they were able to take him into custody. They pl aced him in the back of one of the Liberty Township cruisers. While they f inished their paperwork, the Defendant climbed through the window from the back seat to the front seat and he was able to take off in the police cruiser. {¶22} “The police cruiser contained a shotgun that was the property o f the Liberty Township Police Department and the Defendant was under disabili ty for Possession of Firearms. {¶23} “[D]uring that time, the police attempted to stop this Defendan t from leaving the scene, as he was in custody, and he refused to do so, drivi ng off with the vehicle, ultimately crashing into another motor vehicle. {¶24} “To prove these allegations the State would have brought forth the testimony of the arresting officers and witnesses at the scene. ” {¶25} The trial court determined that Mr. Willard made knowing, intel ligent, and voluntary guilty pleas; had been informed of his constitutional rights; and understood the nature of the charges, the effect of changing his pleas, and th e possible penalties. Accordingly, the court accepted Mr. Willard’s guilty pleas and found him guilty.6 Case No. 2020-T-0040 {¶26} Mr. Willard waived a presentence investigation, and the matter proceeded immediately to sentencing. Sentencing {¶27} During the sentencing portion of the hearing, the trial court a sked the state whether there were any issues of restitution. The state respon ded that the Liberty Township Police Department had submitted a victim response form requesting restitution of $10,000 as a result of alleged damage to the police cruiser and $4,500 in officer overtime as a result of the incident. The state indicated it w as unaware until after the start of the hearing that the form had been provided and did not know if defense counsel had seen it. Defense counsel indicated that he had not. {¶28} Following defense counsel’s review of the form, the following e xchange occurred: {¶29} “[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor, the only thing I can see, ther e was insurance on this vehicle, and they checked that it is, so I do n’t know that they’re out $10,000. It’s purely overtime. {¶30} “[THE TRIAL COURT]: Are you able to verify that? {¶31} “[THE STATE]: Well, Your Honor, it does say that there was ins urance for the vehicle, so I would assume that they were made whole. Now, I have not received anything from the insurance company. * * * With regard to the o vertime, it’s not unheard of for police departments to ask for that, though it’s rare. Th e overtime amount is $4,500. {¶32} “[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: That’s the first time I heard over time. {¶33} “[THE TRIAL COURT]: You would agree with the defense that the insurance covers the car?7 Case No. 2020-T-0040 {¶34} “[THE STATE]: It’s marked here, yes. {¶35} “[THE TRIAL COURT]: So the issue then is the $4,500 overtime t o find this Defendant after he stole the police car? {¶36} “[THE STATE]: Correct. {¶37} “[THE TRIAL COURT]: Anything else on the issue of restitution? {¶38} “[THE STATE]: No. {¶39} “[THE TRIAL COURT]: Counselor, is there anything you would lik e to say on behalf of Mr. Willard? {¶40} “[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor, we would just ask the Court to go along with the agreement for the time between the State and the Defense.” {¶41} The trial court sentenced Mr. Willard to prison terms of 36 mon ths on count 1 (having weapons while under dis ability); 24 months on count 2 (grand theft); 18 months on count 3 (grand theft of a motor vehicle); 36 months on count 4 (failure to comply with order or signal of police officer); 24 months on count 5 (escap e); and 12 months on count 6 (obstructing official business). 1 The trial court ordered the prison terms in counts 1, 2, and 3 to be served concurrent to each other; the prison terms i n counts 5 and 6 to be served concurrent to each other but consecutive to the prison t erms in counts 1, 2, and 3; and the prison term in count 4 to be served consecutive to a ll other counts, for an aggregate prison term of 96 months.

1. The hearing transcript indicates that the trial court impos ed a prison term of 24 months on count 6, while the subsequent judgment entry states 12 months. Mr. Willard ha s not challenged this discrepancy on appeal.8 Case No. 2020-T-0040 {¶42} The trial court stated that it had “reviewed the appropriate do cumentation” and ordered Mr. Willard to pay restitution to the Liberty Towns hip Police Department in the sum of $4,500 “for overtime as necessary to apprehend” Mr. Willard. {¶43} The hearing transcript indicates that following the trial court ’s pronouncement of sentence, Mr. Willard voiced his displeasure w ith the length of his aggregate prison sentence by using expletives and remarking, “T hat’s not what I agreed to.” {¶44} The trial court subsequently issued judgment entries memorializ ing Mr. Willard’s guilty pleas and sentences. {¶45} Mr. Willard appealed and now raise s the following two assignmen ts of error: {¶46} “[1.] The trial court abused its discretion when it ordered re stitution for expenses incurred by the police department for officer overtime

. {¶47} “[2.] The trial court erred when [it] found that appellant’s c hange of plea was made knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily.” {¶48} Based on our consideration of the record and briefs, this court , sua sponte, ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs in relation to Mr. Willard’s first assignment of error to address whether the Liberty Township Police Departm ent constitutes a “victim” for purposes of R.C. 2929.18(A)(1). Both parties filed supplem ental briefs and agreed that the Liberty Township Police Department does not constitute a “victim” under R.C. 2929.18(A)(1) and, therefore, that the trial court’s restitutio n order was erroneous. {¶49} We review Mr. Willard’s assignments of error in reverse order.9 Case No. 2020-T-0040 Guilty Pleas {¶50} In his second assignment of error, Mr. Willard contends he did not enter his guilty pleas knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily because t he trial court failed to comply with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) during the plea colloquy. Standard of Review {¶51} This court reviews de novo whether the trial court accepted a p lea in compliance with Crim.R. 11. State v. Dundics , 2016-Ohio-1368, 62 N.E.3d 1013, ¶ 10 (11th Dist.). Crim.R. 11(C)(2) {¶52} “When a defendant enters a plea in a criminal case, the plea mu st be made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. Failure on any of t hose points renders enforcement of the plea unconstitutional under both the United States Constitution and the Ohio Constitution.” State v. Engle , 74 Ohio St.3d 525, 527, 660 N.E.2d 450 (1996). Crim.R. 11 was adopted to give detailed instructions to trial c ourts on the procedures to follow before accepting pleas of guilty. State v. Barker, 129 Ohio St.3d 472, 2011-Ohio4130, 953 N.E.2d 826, ¶ 9. {¶53} Crim.R. 11(C)(2), provides, in relevant part, as follows: {¶54} “In felony cases the court * * * shall not accept a plea of gui lty * * * without first addressing the defendant personally and doing all of the following: {¶55} “(a) Determining that the defendant is making the plea voluntarily, with understanding of the nature of the charges and of the maximum penalty involved , and if applicable, that the defendant is not eligible for probation or for the imposition of community control sanctions at the sentencing hearing.10 Case No. 2020-T-0040 {¶56} “(b) Informing the defendant of and determining that the defend ant understands the effect of the plea of guilty * * *, and that th e court, upon acceptance of the plea, may proceed with judgment and sentence. {¶57} “(c) Informing the defendant and determining that the defendant understands that by the plea the defendant is waiving the right s to jury trial, to confront witnesses against him or her, to have compulsory process for ob taining witnesses in the defendant’s favor, and to require the state to prove the defend ant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at a trial at which the defendant cannot be co mpelled to testify against himself or herself.” (Emphasis added.) Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) th rough (c). {¶58} The Supreme Court of Ohio most recently addressed appellate rev iew of a trial court’s compliance with Crim.R. 11 in State v. Dangler, 162 Ohio St.3d 1, 2020-Ohio2765, 164 N.E.3d 286. {¶59} According to the court, the focus in reviewing pleas is not “on whether the trial judge has ‘[incanted] the precise verbiage’ of the rule, * * * but on whether the dialogue between the court and the defendant demonstrates that the defe ndant understood the consequences of his plea.” (Emphasis added.) Id. at ¶ 12, quoting State v. Stewart , 51 Ohio St.2d 86, 92, 364 N.E.2d 1163 (1977). {¶60} The court also stated that its prior caselaw had “muddled” the required analysis “by suggesting different tiers of compliance with the rule.” Id . at ¶ 17. For instance, “[t]he court has, in some instances, said that “‘part ial’ compliance is sufficient absent a showing of prejudice from the failure to ‘substantiall y’ comply.” Id ., quoting State v. Clark , 119 Ohio St.3d 239, 2008-Ohio-3748, 893 N.E.2d 462, ¶ 32. Fu rther, “the court has indicated that when a trial court has ‘substantially’ compl ied, the defendant must show11 Case No. 2020-T-0040 prejudice from the failure to ‘strictly’ or ‘literally’ adhere to the rule.” Id ., quoting State v. Nero , 56 Ohio St.3d 106, 107-108, 564 N.E.2d 474 (1990), and Stewart at 93. {¶61} According to the court, “those formulations have served only to unduly complicate what should be a fairly straightforward inquiry. Pr operly understood, the questions to be answered are simply: (1) has the trial court co mplied with the relevant provision of the rule? (2) if the court has not complied fully with the rule, is the purported failure of a type that excuses a defendant from the burden of d emonstrating prejudice? and (3) if a showing of prejudice is required, has the defendan t met that burden?” Id

. {¶62} With the above principles in mind, we apply the three-part Dangler test. Consecutive Prison Terms {¶63} Mr. Willard contends that the trial court did not comply with C rim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) by failing to inform him of the possibility of cons ecutive prison terms for counts 1-3, 5, and 6. We disagree. {¶64} In State v. Johnson , 40 Ohio St.3d 130, 532 N.E.2d 1295 (1988), the Supreme Court of Ohio determined that a trial court complies wi th Crim. R. 11(C)(2)(a) by informing a defendant of the maximum sentence for each of th e individual crimes with which he is charged. Id . at 134. The court held that “[f]ailure to inform a defendant who pleads guilty to more than one offense that the court may order him to serve any sentences imposed consecutively, rather than concurrently, is n ot a violation of Crim.R. 11(C)(2), and does not render the plea involuntary.” Id . at syllabus. {¶65} A plurality of the court recently questioned the applicability of Johnson under the current version of Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a), which requires the trial court to ensure the defendant understands the nature of the “charges” rather than t he “charge.” State v.12 Case No. 2020-T-0040 Bishop , 156 Ohio St.3d 156, 2018-Ohio-5132, 124 N.E.3d 766, ¶ 15 (“Cr im.R. 11(C)(2)(a) has been amended since Johnson so that a single plea can now apply to multiple charges,

see 83 Ohio St.3d xciii, cix (effective July 1, 1998)”). However, the court did not overrule its holding in Johnson

. See id. at ¶ 47 (Kennedy, J., dissenting) (“[W]e have never held that our holding in Johnson has been abrogated by the amended rule”). {¶66} In Bishop , the court addressed the certified question of “[w]hether a criminal defendant on [postrelease control] for a prior felony must be a dvised, during his plea hearing in a new felony case, of the trial court’s ability unde r R.C. 2929.141 to terminate his existing [postrelease control] and to impose a consecutive prison sentence for the [postrelease-control] violation.” Id. at ¶ 1. {¶67} In answering the certified question in the affirmative, the cou rt distinguished Johnson , stating as follows: {¶68} “[W]hat happened to the defendant in Johnson is a far cry from what happened to Bishop. Johnson was told of his potential sentence s for each individual offense; the trial court just failed to tell Johnson the senten ces for each offense could run consecutively. Here, the trial court told Bishop that he could receive a maximum sentence of 12 months for his fifth-degree-felony conviction. But the t rial court did not tell Bishop that he was also subject to a separate consecutive 12-month sen tence for his postrelease-control violation.” Id . at ¶ 16. {¶69} This court and others have recognized the court’s distinction i n Bishop and have continued to apply Johnson

. See , e.g. , State v. Shepard , 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2019-A-0024, 2019-Ohio-3995, ¶ 44, fn. 1; State v. Roberts , 9th Dist. Medina No. 19CA0004-M, 2019-Ohio-4393, ¶ 6-7; State v. Ellis , 5th Dist. Coshocton Nos.13 Case No. 2020-T-0040 2019CA0014 and 2019CA0015, 2020-Ohio-1130, ¶ 9-12; State v. Nelson , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 109072, 109073, and 109260, 2020-Ohio-6993, ¶ 45- 51. {¶70} Courts have also distinguished Johnson in the context of a “mandatory” consecutive prison term imposed pursuant to R.C. 2921.331(D). See , e.g. , State v. Bailey , 9th Dist. Summit Nos. 28003, 28004, and 28005, 2016-Ohio-4937 , ¶ 13; State v. Norman , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga, No. 91302, 2009-Ohio-4044, ¶ 7; State v. Pitts , 159 Ohio App.3d 852, 2005-Ohio-1389, 825 N.E.2d 695, ¶ 22 (6th Dist.). {¶71} R.C. 2921.331(D) provides that if an offender is sentenced to p rison for a felony offense of failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer pursuant to division (C)(4) or (5), the offender “shall serve the prison te rm consecutively to any other prison term or mandatory prison term imposed upon the offender. ” Courts have held that the trial court must inform the defendant of the consecutive na ture of the sentences, as it is part of the maximum penalty. See Bailey at ¶ 13, quoting Norman at ¶ 7 (“When a statute requires that sentences be served consecutively, the co nsecutive nature ‘directly affects the length of the sentence, thus becoming a crucial com ponent of what constitutes the “maximum” sentence’”). {¶72} Here, the trial court properly explained the maximum individual prison terms for each of the six charges to which Mr. Willard pleaded guilty . In addition, as Mr. Willard acknowledges, the trial court expressly informed him of a manda tory consecutive prison term as a result of his guilty plea to count 4, where he was ch arged with failure to comply with order or signal of police officer, a felony of the third d egree, in violation of R.C. 2921.331(B), (C)(1), and (C)(5)(a)(ii).14 Case No. 2020-T-0040 {¶73} Accordingly, since the trial court’s discussion of Mr. Willard’ s prison terms was consistent with the applicable precedent, we conclude that the trial court complied with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a). Restitution {¶74} Mr. Willard next contends that the trial court did not comply w ith Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) by failing to inform him that he may be ordered to pay restitution as part of his possible sentence. We agree. {¶75} There appears to be no case law discussing whether restitution constitutes part of the “maximum penalty involved” under Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a ). {¶76} In State v. Wilson , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102645, 2015-Ohio-5143, the Eighth District Court of Appeals appeared to presume that it do es but determined that the defendant did not demonstrate prejudicial error. See id . at ¶ 11. {¶77} In State v. Jones , 11th Dist. Lake No. 2012-L-072, 2013-Ohio-2616, this court suggested that restitution constitutes part of the maximu m penalty involved by stating, in dicta, that “the best approach for all concerned is that, if a matter of restitution is not apparent from the nature of the plea and charges, there should be some understanding of the restitution parameters at the time of the plea . Otherwise, whether a plea was truly knowing or voluntary would be subject to questio n.” (Emphasis sic.) Id. at ¶ 17. {¶78} The existing statutory authority supports a conclusion that res titution is part of the “maximum penalty involve d” under Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a). {¶79} R.C. 2929.18(A)(1) provides that “the court imposing a sentence upon an offender for a felony may sentence the offender to any financia l sanction or combination15 Case No. 2020-T-0040 of financial sanctions authorized under this section * * *,” including, “ [r]estitution by the offender to the victim of the offender’s crime * * *, in an amo unt based on the victim’s economic loss.” (Emphasis added.) {¶80} The Supreme Court of Ohio has recognized that a restitution ord er imposed for a felony is part of an offender’s sentence. State v. Danison , 105 Ohio St.3d 127, 2005- Ohio-781, 823 N.E.2d 444, syllabus. “‘Sentence’ means the sanction or combination of sanctions imposed by the sentencing court on an offender who is convicte d of or pleads guilty to an offense.” (Emphasis added.) R.C. 2929.01(EE). “ ‘Sanction’ means any penalty imposed upon an offender who is convicted of or pleads guilty to an offense, as punishment for the offense,” and it expressly includes “any sanction imposed pursuant to any provision of sections 2929.14 to 2929.18 * * * of the Revised Code.” (Emphasis added.) R.C. 2929.01(DD). {¶81} Thus, since an order of restitution is a “penalty” and a compon ent of the defendant’s sentence, we conclude that it constitutes part of t he “maximum penalty involved” under Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a). {¶82} The transcript demonstrates that the trial court did not make a ny reference to restitution during the plea hearing. The state contends tha t the trial court “substantially complied” with the rule because Mr. Willard’s written plea agre ement indicated that restitution may be imposed and because the trial court confirme d Mr. Willard’s understanding of the written plea agreement during the plea col loquy. {¶83} We note that in State v. Veney , 120 Ohio St.3d 176, 2008-Ohio-5200, 897 N.E.2d 621, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that a written plea form could be considered as part of the totality of the circumstances in determining whe ther a trial court substantially16 Case No. 2020-T-0040 complied with the nonconstitutional requirements in Crim.R. 11( C)(a) and (b). See id . at ¶ 15-16. {¶84} Veney may not be consistent with Dangler , where the court indicated that the relevant focus is on the “ dialogue between the court and the defendant” and whether it “demonstrates that the defendant understood the consequences of his plea.” (Emphasis added.) See id . at ¶ 12. The Dangler court also criticiz ed its past use of “different tiers of compliance with the rule,” including the co ncept of substantial compliance. See id . at ¶ 17. Under Dangler , the extent of trial court’s compliance is now relevant in determining whether a prejudice analysis is require d. See id . at ¶ 15 (“[A] trial court’s complete failure to comply with a portion of Crim.R. 11(C) eliminates th e defendant’s burden to show prejudice”). (Emphasis sic.) {¶85} Further, while Mr. Willard’s plea agreement stated that “restit ution * * * may be imposed,” it contained no specificity to the present case. In fact, the transcript demonstrates that the state was not aware of the Liberty Townsh ip Police Department’s request for restitution until after the plea/sentencing hearing began. Defense counsel was not informed of the police department’s request until the s entencing portion of the hearing, which occurred after the trial court accepted Mr. Will ard’s guilty pleas. Therefore, Mr. Willard could not have understood that he could be ordered to pay restitution to the Liberty Township Police Department prior to the trial court’s a cceptance of his guilty pleas. {¶86} Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not comply wi th Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) by failing to inform Mr. Willard that he may be ord ered to pay restitution the Liberty Township Police Department.17 Case No. 2020-T-0040 Prejudice Exceptions {¶87} We next determine whether the trial court’s error is “of a type that excuses a defendant from the burden of demonstrating prejudice.” Dangler at ¶ 17. We conclude that it is not. {¶88} According to the Dangler court, “[w]hen a criminal defendant seeks to have his conviction reversed on appeal, the traditional rule is that he must establish that an error occurred in the trial-court proceedings and that he was p rejudiced by that error.” Id. at ¶ 13. This traditional rule is subject to two “limited” exc eptions. See id . at ¶ 14-15. {¶89} First, “[w]hen a trial court fails to explain the constitutiona l rights that a defendant waives by pleading guilty or no contest, [a reviewing court] presume[s] that the plea was entered involuntarily and unknowingly, and no showing of prejudice is required.” Id . at ¶ 14. {¶90} Second, “a trial court’s complete failure to comply with a portion of Crim.R. 11(C) eliminates the defendant’s burden to show prejudice.” (E mphasis sic.) Dangler at ¶ 15. The court explained that in State v. Sarkozy , 117 Ohio St.3d 86, 2008-Ohio-509, 881 N.E.2d 1224, it held that “the trial court completely faile d to comply with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a)’s requirement that it explain the maximum penalty w hen the court made no mention of postrelease control in the plea colloquy, despite th e fact the defendant was subject to a mandatory five years of postrelease control.” Id

. {¶91} The court reiterated that “[a]side from these two exceptions, t he traditional rule continues to apply: a defendant is not entitled to have h is plea vacated unless he demonstrates he was prejudiced by a failure of the trial court to comply with the provisions18 Case No. 2020-T-0040 of Crim.R. 11(C).” Id . at ¶ 16. “The test for prejudice is ‘whether the plea would have otherwise been made.’” Id ., quoting Nero at 108. {¶92} In Dangler , the trial court informed the defendant that he would be requi red to register as a Tier III sex offender for the rest of his life but did not fully explain the obligations and restrictions that accompanied his status as a s ex offender. Id . at ¶ 1. The Supreme Court of Ohio determined that neither of its exceptions to the prejudice requirements applied. Id . at ¶ 23. {¶93} First, the “maximum-penalty advisement is not a constitutional requirement.” Id . Second, the trial court did not “completely fail” to comply with the “maximum-penalty-advisement requirement” in Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) because it advised the defendant that he would be subject to the registration requ irements of the statutory scheme. See id . at ¶ 22. Thus, the court concluded that the defendant could prevail “only by establishing that he would not have pleaded no contest but f or the trial court’s failure to explain the sex-offender classification scheme more thorough ly.” Id . at ¶ 23. {¶94} Here, Mr. Willard challenges the trial court’s compliance with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a), which involves nonconstitutional rights. See Dangler at ¶ 23. Therefore, the first exception does not apply. {¶95} We acknowledge that the trial court made no mention of restitut ion during the plea colloquy. However, in the context of a non-prison san ction, we construe the second exception as applicable when the trial court makes no me ntion of a mandatory component of a defendant’s sentence. See Sarkozy at ¶ 22 (mandatory postrelease control); State v. Rogers , 2020-Ohio-4102, 157 N.E.3d 142, ¶ 23 (12th Dist.) (mandatory19 Case No. 2020-T-0040 fine); State v. Brown , 2020-Ohio-4474, 158 N.E.3d 972, ¶ 32 (8th Dist.) (mandatory s ex offender requirements). {¶96} As the dissenting judge in Rogers aptly noted, construing Dangler broadly would result in a defendant being excepted from the prejudice r equirement upon a trial court’s failure to mention any component of the defendant’s pot ential sentence, even if that component was not actually imposed, was inconsequential, o r was demonstratively known. See Rogers at ¶ 36, fn. 4 (Piper, J., dissenting). It would also require rev ersal of pleas that would not have been reversed prior to Dangler , which would be contrary to the simplicity that the Dangler court intended. See id . at ¶ 36 (Piper, J., dissenting). {¶97} R.C. 2929.18(A)(1) provides that the trial court may impose restitution, which indicates a restitution order is discretionary, not manda tory. Therefore, we conclude the trial court’s error is not “of a type that excuses ” Mr. Willard “from the burden of demonstrating prejudice.” Dangler at ¶ 17. Prejudice Analysis {¶98} “The test for prejudice is ‘whether the plea would have otherwi se been made.’” Dangler at ¶ 16, quoting Nero at 108. Prejudice must be established “‘on the face of the record.’” Id . at ¶ 24, quoting Hayward v. Summa Health Sys./Akron City Hosp ., 139 Ohio St.3d 238, 2014-Ohio-1913, 11 N.E.3d 243, ¶ 26. {¶99} Mr. Willard has not asserted t he existence of prejudice, and we find none on the face of the record. {¶100} Courts have held where a trial court fails to advise a defendan t of some facet of a maximum penalty but otherwise complies with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a), the defendant cannot show prejudice if the trial court does not act ually impose the component20 Case No. 2020-T-0040 of the maximum sentence that it did not discuss. See State v. Liles , 3d Dist. Allen No. 1- 18-69, 2019-Ohio-3029, ¶ 23; State v. Simmons , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 99513 and 100552, 2013-Ohio-5026, ¶ 7. For example, in Simmons , the Eighth District found no resulting prejudice from the trial court’s failure to advise th e defendant of possible fines and court costs where it did not actually impose them and other wise advised the defendant of the maximum penalty he faced. Id . at ¶ 7. 2 {¶101} The trial court properly advised Mr. Willard regarding the maxi mum penalty involved other than restitution, and it did not actually impose restitution for vehicle damage. Therefore, Mr. Willard cannot demonstrate prejudice re sulting from the trial court’s failure to inform him about potential restitution for v ehicle damage. {¶102} In addition, there is nothing in the record indicating that Mr. Willard would not have entered his guilty pleas had the trial court informed him of potential restitution for officer overtime. {¶103} For instance, after defense counsel reviewed the police departm ent’s restitution request during the sentencing hearing, he disputed the portion relating to vehicle damage. Neither defense counsel nor Mr. Willard disput ed the portion relating to officer overtime. Mr. Willard also did not move to withdraw hi s guilty pleas either before or after sentencing. Based Mr. Willard’s comments following th e trial court’s announcement of sentence, the record indicates that Mr. Willard was primarily concerned with the length of his aggregate prison sentence, not the resti tution order.

2. We acknowledge some appellate districts have determined tha t any issues relating to unimposed components of a penalty are “moot.” See , e.g. , Roger s at ¶ 10, fn. 1 (involving fines and driver’s license suspension); State v. Bostic , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 84842, 2005-Ohio-2184, ¶ 24 (involving postrelease control). However, we find a prejudice analysis to be more app ropriate.21 Case No. 2020-T-0040 {¶104} Accordingly, Mr. Willard has not established that he was prejud iced by the trial court’s error. {¶105} Mr. Willard’s second assignment is without merit. Restitution Order {¶106} In his first assignment of error, Mr. Willard challenges the tr ial court’s restitution order in the amount of $4,500 for police officer ov ertime. Standard of Review {¶107} This court reviews restitution orders pursuant to R.C. 2953.08( G)(2). State v. Ciresi , 2020-Ohio-5305, 162 N.E.3d 846, ¶ 5 (11th Dist.). That provi sion states: {¶108} “The court hearing an appeal under division (A), (B), or (C) of this section shall review the record, including the findings underlying the sentence or modification given by the sentencing court. {¶109} “The appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence that is appealed under this section or may vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing. The appellate court’s s tandard for review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion. The appell ate court may take any action authorized by this division if it clearly and convincing ly finds either of the following: {¶110} “(a) That the record does not support the sentencing court’s fi ndings under division (B) or (D) of section 2929.13, division (B)(2)(e) or ( C)(4) of section 2929.14, or division (I) of section 2929.20 of the Revised Code, whichever, if any, is relevant; {¶111} “(b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.”22 Case No. 2020-T-0040 {¶112} Here, none of the sections referenced in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) apply. Thus, our review is limited to determining whether we clearly a nd convincingly find that the restitution order is otherwise contrary to law. Ciresi at ¶ 10. Supplemental Briefing {¶113} In his appellate brief, Mr. Willard’s argument focuses on wheth er the amount of $4,500 for officer overtime bears a reasonable relationship to the loss the Liberty Township Police Department suffered. {¶114} As indicated, this court, sua sponte, ordered the parties to fi le supplemental briefs addressing whether the Liberty Township Police Departmen t constitutes a “victim” for purposes of R.C. 2929.18(A)(1). In their supplemental brie fs, both Mr. Willard and the state agree that the Liberty Township Police Department does no t constitute a “victim” under R.C. 2929.18(A)(1) and, therefore, that the trial court’s restitution order was erroneous. Despite the state’s concession of error, we briefly discuss the issue. Law and Analysis {¶115} R.C. 2929.18(A)(1) provides, in relevant part, that “the court imposing a sentence upon an offender for a felony may sentence the offende r to any financial sanction or combination of financial sanctions authorized under this section,” including “[r]estitution by the offender to the victim of the offender’s crime * * * in an amount based on the victim’s economic loss.” {¶116} The statute does not define the term “victim.” This court has defined a “victim of a crime” as “the person or entity that was the ‘obje ct’ of the crime.” State v. Pietrangelo , 11th Dist. Lake No. 2003-L-125, 2005-Ohio-1686, ¶ 15, quoting State v. Samuels , 4th Dist. Washington No. 03CA8, 2003-Ohio-6106, ¶ 5.23 Case No. 2020-T-0040 {¶117} In Pietrangelo , we determined that “a government entity voluntarily advancing its own funds to pursue a drug buy through an informa nt is not one of the scenarios contemplated by R.C. 2929.18(A)(1).” Id . We recognized that “[i]n certain circumstances, a government entity may be considered a victim o f a crime under R.C. 2929.18(A)(1): For example, when government funds are embezzle d or when government property is vandalized.” Id . We also acknowledged the state’s “legitimate interest and entitlement, in certain cases, to defray the spira ling costs of criminal investigation on behalf of the taxpayer.” Id . at ¶ 17. However, we agreed with the majority of federal and states court that had concluded “‘the government is not a victim entitled to restitution where public moneys are expended in pursuit of solv ing crimes, as these expenditures represent normal operating costs.’” Id ., quoting State v. Sequiera , 93 Haw. 34, 43, 995 P.2d 335 (2000). Based on the absence of “an expre ss statement from the legislature authorizing trial courts to sentence criminal defen dants to pay restitution to law enforcement agencies for this purpose,” we declined to “take it upon ourselves to judicially rewrite the statute.” Id

. {¶118} In In re M.A ., 2016-Ohio-1161, 61 N.E.3d 630 (11th Dist.), we determined police and fire departments did not qualify as “victims” pursua nt to R.C. 2152.20(A)(3), which governs restitution following a delinquency adjudication, where the departments responded to a “nonspecific” bomb threat made to the schools wi thin a district. Id . at ¶ 1. We explained that the bomb threat was not made against these de partments and was not the type of crime “where actual harm was done to the Department s themselves, through damage or theft. They merely performed services in aiding the public and/or investigating crime, which is well within their ordinary duties.” Id . at ¶ 21. While the record indicated24 Case No. 2020-T-0040 the police department had “expended some funds due to overtime work,” the state cited no case law indicating that “overtime funds expended are not pa rt of normal operating costs.” Id . at ¶ 22. Further, even if additional overtime funds were con sidered an economic loss, the police department was not a “victim” as the statute has been interpreted. Id .; see also State v. Jones , 7th Dist. Jefferson Nos. 08 JE 20 and 08 JE 29, 2010-Ohio-2704, ¶ 47 (“[T]he government is not a victim under t he restitution statute merely because it expended funds in some manner as a result of the defendant’s offense”). {¶119} In this case, even assuming the Liberty Township Police Departm ent incurred $4,500 in overtime costs as a result of Mr. Willard’s offenses, we conclude, based on the foregoing authority, that such expenses were part of the department’s normal operating costs. Therefore, the department was not a “victim” that suffered an “economic loss” pursuant to R.C. 2929.18(A)(1). {¶120} Accordingly, we clearly and convincingly find that the trial co urt’s restitution order is contrary to law. The trial court’s judgment is modifi ed to remove the restitution order and is affirmed as modified. {¶121} Mr. Willard’s first assignment of error has merit. {¶122} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed in par t, modified in part, and affirme d as modified.

THOMAS R. WRIGHT, J., MATT LYNCH, J.,

concur.