[Cite as Zanesville v. Quinn, 2018-Ohio-429.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

CITY OF ZANESVILLE : JUDGES: 

 : Hon. John W. Wise, P.J. 

 Plaintiff - Appellee : Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. 

 : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. 

-vs- : 

 : 

RYAN QUINN : Case No. CT2017-0033 

 : 

 Defendant - Appellant : O P I N I O N 

 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Zanesville Municipal 

Court, Case No. 17 CRB 00267 

 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT: January 31, 2018 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant 

DAVID J. TARBERT ERIC J. ALLEN 

EMILY STRANG TARBERT The Law Office of Eric J. Allen, Ltd. 

SCOTT D. EICKELBERGER 4605 Morse Rd., Suite 201 

City of Zanesville Gahanna, Ohio 43230 

Law Director’s Office 

401 Market Street, Suite 209 

Zanesville, Ohio 43701 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2017-0033 2 

Baldwin, J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Ryan Quinn appeals from May 16, 2017 Entry of the 

Zanesville Municipal Court. Plaintiff-appellee is the City of Zanesville. 

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE 

{¶2} On January 2, 2017, the Zanesville Police Department responded to a call 

that appellant had vandalized a vehicle owned by Adriane Johnson and had assaulted 

Allen Henderson. The vehicle was a 2003 Chevy Trailblazer with approximately 220,200 

miles. Appellant was charged with criminal damaging, a misdemeanor of the second 

degree, and assault, a misdemeanor of the first degree. At his arraignment, appellant 

entered plea of not guilty to the charges. 

{¶3} Appellant, on April 11, 2017, entered a plea of no contest to the charge of 

criminal damaging and was found guilty by the trial court. At appellee’s request, the 

remaining charge was dismissed. At the April 11, 2017 hearing, appellant admitted to 

keying Johnson’s vehicle, but claimed that he did not cause any other damage to the 

same. The trial court deferred sentencing until it could obtain more information about the 

damage for purposes of restitution. 

{¶4} At the May 6, 2017 hearing, the Assistant City Law Director for the City of 

Zanesville stated that the amount of restitution requested was $1,761.00, which was the 

Kelley Blue Book value of Johnson’s vehicle. Johnson testified that appellant had busted 

out her taillight and caused deep scratches to her vehicle. She testified that the front of 

the car had “some imperfections and scratches”. Transcript from May 6, 2017 hearing at 

7. When asked by the trial court, Johnson testified that prior to the evening in question, 

her vehicle did not have any damage. Johnson further testified that the next day, she 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2017-0033 3 

took her vehicle to Maysville Muffler and that the estimate to have the Trailblazer repaired 

was approximately $3,370.55. Because the value of her vehicle was less that it cost to 

repair it, Johnson obtained a Kelley Blue Book value for her vehicle that indicated that the 

value was $1,761.00. At the request of the Assistant City Law Director, Johnson took her 

vehicle into Southside Collision for a second repair estimate. She testified that the second 

estimate was for $5,877.28. Photographs of the damage were introduced as exhibits as 

were the two estimates and the Kelley Blue Book value. 

{¶5} At the hearing, appellant admitted to keying Johnson’s vehicle on the 

passenger side, but denied that he caused any other damage and objected to paying 

restitution other than for the repair to the passenger door. He testified that he did not 

notice any other damage to the vehicle when he was keying the passenger side door. 

The following testimony was adduced on cross-examination: 

{¶6} Q: So your defense here today is that because they only confronted you 

with the keying, that’s obviously all you did? 

{¶7} A: That is all I did. 

{¶8} Q: What did you notice was damaged on her vehicle when you were keying 

the passenger’s side? What else did you notice? 

{¶9} A: None. 

{¶10} Q: No damage? 

{¶11} A: No. 

{¶12} Q: Okay. So even your own testimony indicates that there was no damage 

to the vehicle prior to your keying the door? 

{¶13} A: No, ma’am. 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2017-0033 4 

{¶14} Transcript from May 6, 2017 hearing at 26. Appellant claimed that Johnson 

had gone out after he left and keyed her own vehicle. 

{¶15} The trial court, at the conclusion of the hearing, indicated that it did not find 

appellant’s testimony credible and awarded Johnson restitution in the amount of 

$1,761.00, the Kelley Blue Book value of the vehicle. As memorialized in an Entry filed 

on May 16, 2017, the trial court fined appellant $200.00 and ordered him to serve 45 days 

in jail with 30 days suspended. The trial court also ordered appellant to pay restitution in 

the amount of $1,761.00. 

{¶16} Appellant now raises the following assignment of error on appeal: 

{¶17} I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ORDERING RESTITUTION NOT 

RELATED TO THE VICTIM’S ECONOMIC LOSS AND NOT SUPPORTED BY 

COMPETENT AND CREDIBLE EVIDENCE AND NOT IN AN AMOUNT DETERMINED 

TO A REASONABLE DEGREE OF CERTAINTY. 

I 

{¶18} Appellant, in his sole assignment of error, challenges the amount of 

restitution ordered by the trial court.

{¶19} R.C. 2929.28 governs financial sanctions for misdemeanors. Such section 

states, in relevant part, as follows: 

(A) In addition to imposing court costs pursuant to section 2947.23 

of the Revised Code, the court imposing a sentence upon an offender for a 

misdemeanor, including a minor misdemeanor, may sentence the offender 

to any financial sanction or combination of financial sanctions authorized 

under this section. If the court in its discretion imposes one or more financial 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2017-0033 5 

sanctions, the financial sanctions that may be imposed pursuant to this 

section include, but are not limited to, the following: 

(1) Unless the misdemeanor offense is a minor misdemeanor or 

could be disposed of by the traffic violations bureau serving the court under 

Traffic Rule 13, restitution by the offender to the victim of the offender's 

crime or any survivor of the victim, in an amount based on the victim's 

economic loss. The court may not impose restitution as a sanction pursuant 

to this division if the offense is a minor misdemeanor or could be disposed 

of by the traffic violations bureau serving the court under Traffic Rule 13. If 

the court requires restitution, the court shall order that the restitution be 

made to the victim in open court or to the adult probation department that 

serves the jurisdiction or the clerk of the court on behalf of the victim. 

If the court imposes restitution, the court shall determine the amount 

of restitution to be paid by the offender. If the court imposes restitution, the 

court 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 other information, provided that the amount the court orders 

as restitution shall not exceed the amount of the economic loss suffered by 

the victim as a direct and proximate result of the commission of the offense. 

If the court decides to impose restitution, the court shall hold an evidentiary 

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

of restitution. If the court holds an evidentiary hearing, at the hearing the 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2017-0033 6 

victim or survivor has the burden to prove by a preponderance of the 

evidence the amount of restitution sought from the offender. 

{¶20} We review a trial court's restitution order for an abuse of discretion. State v. 

Jones, 10th Dist. No. 14AP-80, 2014-Ohio-3740, 2014 WL 4245959, ¶ 22, citing State v. 

Norman, 2013-Ohio-1908, 992 N.E.2d 432, ¶ 67. In order to find an abuse of discretion, 

we must determine the trial court's decision was unreasonable, arbitrary or 

unconscionable and not merely an error of law or judgment. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 

Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983). “ ‘A trial court abuses its discretion when it 

orders restitution in an amount that has not been determined to bear a reasonable 

relationship to the actual loss suffered as a result of the defendant's offense.’ ” Jones at 

¶ 22, quoting State v. Aliane, 10th Dist. No. 03AP-840, 2004-Ohio-3730, 2004 WL 

1576407, ¶ 15. See also State v. Moore–Bennett, 8th Dist. No. 95450, 2011-Ohio-1937, 

2011 WL 1584497, ¶ 18. 

{¶21} Contrary to appellee’s assertion, we find that appellant did object to the 

restitution order. We must thus determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in 

ordering appellant to pay restitution in the amount of $1,761.00 to Johnson. 

{¶22} In the case sub judice, the trial court declined to award Johnson the amount 

indicated in either of the two repair estimates that she obtained on the basis that the 

estimates far exceeded the value of her vehicle. At the hearing, there was testimony that 

the Kelley Blue Book value of the vehicle was $1,761.00. The Kelley Blue Book value, 

which was admitted as an exhibit, indicated that the value of a 2003 Chevy Trailblazer 

with approximately 220,000 mile was $1,761.00. We find that the trial court’s decision, 

therefore, was not arbitrary, unconscionable or unreasonable. While appellant, at the 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2017-0033 7 

hearing, admitted only to keying Johnson’s vehicle on the passenger side, as noted by 

appellee, he further agreed that, at the time he keyed her vehicle, there was no damage 

to the vehicle. Moreover, the trial court clearly stated on the record that it did not find 

appellant’s testimony credible and that the cost of repairing the vehicle, including painting 

and clear coating, fair exceeded the value of the same. 

{¶23} Based on the foregoing, appellant’s sole assignment of error is overruled. 

{¶24} Accordingly, the judgment of the Zanesville Municipal Court is affirmed. 

By: Baldwin, J. 

John Wise, P.J. and 

Hoffman, J. concur.