[Cite as State v. Hill , 2020-Ohio-1433.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

WARREN COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, Appellee,

- vs -

DEMETRIUS HILL, Appellant. :

:

:

:

:

: CASE NO. CA2019-07-072

O P I N I O N

4/13/2020

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM WARREN CO UNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. 18CR34834

David P. Fornshell, Warren County Prosecuting Attorney, Kirsten A. Brandt, 520 Justice Drive, Lebanon, Ohio 45036, for appellee Craig A. Newburger, 477 Forest Edge Drive, South Lebanon, Ohio 45065, for appellant

RINGLAND, J. {¶ 1} Appellant, Demetrius Hill, appeals a decision of the Warren Cou nty Court of Common Pleas ordering him to pay $1,678.00 in restitution. For the reasons detailed below, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. {¶ 2} Hill pled guilty to one count of passing bad checks in violatio n of R.C. 2913.11, a fifth-degree felony, and the matter was set for sentencing.Warren CA2019-07-072

- 2 - {¶ 3} At the sentencing hearing, Hill disputed the restitution amount set forth by the state and requested a hearing. The trial court indicated that Hill's request could be addressed on appeal or in a subsequent restitution hearing. 1 The trial court then ordered restitution in the amount of $1,678.00. Hill now appeals, rais ing a single assignment of

error for review: {¶ 4} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY NOT GRANTING APPELLANT A

RESTITUTION HEARING. {¶ 5} In his sole assignment of error, Hill argues the trial court er red by refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing before ordering restitution after H ill disputed the restitution

amount. {¶ 6} R.C. 2929.18(A)(1) grants a trial court the authority to order restitution by an offender to a victim, or any survivor of the victim, in an amou nt commensurate with the

victim's economic loss. State v. Lee , 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2018-11-134, 2019-Ohio4725, ¶ 8. As defined by R.C. 2929.01(L), the term "economic l oss" means "any economic detriment suffered by a victim as a direct and proximate result of the commission of an

offense." {¶ 7} If the court imposes restitution at sentencing, the court must determine the

amount of restitution at that time. State v. Lowe , 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-130048, 2013- Ohio-4224, ¶ 4. Pursuant to R.C. 2929.18(A)(1), "[i]f the cour t decides to impose restitution, the court shall hold a hearing on restitution if the offender, victim, or survivor disputes the amount." Therefore, as this court has stated previously, "if t he court decides to impose restitution, it must hold a hearing if the offender disputes th e amount." State v. Geldrich ,

1. There is no record that a subsequent evidentiary hearing wa s held, nor would such a hearing resolve the issue as the Ohio Supreme Court has held "an order of restituti on imposed by the sentencing court on an offender for a felony is part of the sentence and, as such, is a final and appealable order." State v. Danison , 105 Ohio St.3d 127, 2005-Ohio-781, ¶ 8; State v. Lowe , 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-130048, 2013-Ohio-4224, ¶ 3.Warren CA2019-07-072

- 3 - 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2014-08-112, 2015-Ohio-1706, ¶ 8; State v. Lalain , 136 Ohio St. 3d 248, 2013-Ohio- 3093, ¶ 22 (noting the statute "mandates tha t the court must hold a hearing on restitution" if the offender disputes the amount of restitution imposed). {¶ 8} In this case, the record estab lishes that Hill disputed the amo unt of restitution imposed and explicitly requested an evidentiary hearing on the matter. As a result, pursuant to the requirements found in R.C. 2929.18(A)(1), the trial cour t was required to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the appropriate amount of rest itution that should be imposed. The trial court's refusal to hold an evidentiary hear ing under these circumstances

constitutes reversible error. See, e.g., Geldrich at ¶ 9 (finding the trial court's refusal to hold an evidentiary hearing after the offender specifically disputed the amount of restitution ordered at sentencing constituted reversible error). Hill's so le assignment of error is sustained, the restitution order is reversed, and this matter i s remanded to the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing in compliance with the requireme nts of R.C. 2929.18(A)(1). {¶ 9} Judgment reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

HENDRICKSON, P.J., and S. POWELL, J., concur.