Court Opinion

ID: 9882882
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-05 22:21:25.112014+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:06.034541
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Trost, 2023-Ohio-3127.]

                 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                            ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                   LAKE COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,                                    CASE NO. 2023-L-012

                 Plaintiff-Appellee,
                                                  Criminal Appeal from the
        - vs -                                    Court of Common Pleas

SAMUEL TROST, JR.,
                                                  Trial Court No. 2022 CR 001185
                 Defendant-Appellant.

                                            OPINION

                                     Decided: September 5, 2023
                                         Judgment: Affirmed

Charles E. Coulson, Lake County Prosecutor, and Kristi L. Winner, Assistant Prosecutor,
Lake County Administration Building, 105 Main Street, P.O. Box 490, Painesville, OH
44077 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).

Vanessa R. Clapp, Lake County Public Defender, and Jamie R. Eck, Assistant Public
Defender, 125 East Erie Street, Painesville, OH 44077 (For Defendant-Appellant).

ROBERT J. PATTON, J.

        {¶1}     Appellant, Samuel Trost Jr., appeals the trial court’s restitution order. For

the reasons set forth below, the judgment of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas is

affirmed.

        {¶2}     On November 10, 2022, the Lake County Grand Jury indicted Trost for

Aggravated Arson, a felony of the second degree in violation of R.C 2909.02(A)(2). Trost

entered a plea of guilty to the charge as indicted on December 1, 2022. The trial court

accepted Trost’s guilty plea, and a pre-sentence investigation was ordered.
       {¶3}   As this case resulted in a plea, there are limited facts as to the underlying

offense. Those limited facts are as follows:

       {¶4}   At the time of the fire, Khalid Griffin, the owner of residential property located

at 27700 White Road, was renting separate rooms of the residence to at least two

individuals. One of those individuals was Trost. For reasons unclear from the record

before us, Griffin had asked Trost to leave the property and move out on May 7, 2022.

Trost responded by setting fire to a mattress or bed that was located in an upstairs room

above a garage. Trost also attempted to set fire to another area of the property but was

unsuccessful. The fire spread and consumed the second floor of the house. The property

was heavily damaged.

       {¶5}   A sentencing hearing was held on January 4, 2023. During the sentencing

hearing, Griffin provided a victim impact statement and testimony regarding the amount

of restitution. According to Griffin, insurance covered a portion of the expenses to repair

the damaged property after the fire. He informed the trial court that he personally spent

an additional $60,000.00 on repairs that were not covered by insurance. Griffin did not

provide the amount he received by the insurance company and did not provide receipts

or an itemized list of his personal expenditures.

       {¶6}   The trial court sentenced Trost to imprisonment for a minimum term of four

(4) years with a maximum term of six (6) years and notified Trost of his duty to register as

an arson offender. The trial court also ordered Trost to pay restitution in the amount of

$60,000.00. Trost objected to the restitution order.

                                              2

Case No. 2023-L-012
       {¶7}   Trost timely appeals and raises the following assignment of error:

       {¶8}   “The trial court erred by sentencing the defendant appellant to pay

restitution to the victim in an amount that was unsupported by the record and thus,

contrary to law.”

       {¶9}   Appellate courts review felony restitution orders pursuant to R.C.

2953.08(G)(2). State v. Williams, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2020-L-111, 2021-Ohio-2814, ¶ 16.

       {¶10} For purposes of this appeal, our standard of review, under R.C.

2953.08(G)(2), provides:

              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 standard for
              review is not whether the sentencing court abused its
              discretion. The appellate court may take any action authorized
              by this division if it clearly and convincingly finds * * * that the
              sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

              R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b).

       {¶11} This Court, in conducting that analysis, must review the record, including

the findings underlying the sentence * * *.” Williams, supra at ¶ 17.

       {¶12} In his sole assignment of error, Trost asserts that the amount of restitution

ordered by the trial court is unsupported by the record. We disagree.

       {¶13} R.C. 2929.18(A)(1) provides that financial sanctions for a felony may

include: “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 victim, victim's

representative, victim's attorney, if applicable, the prosecutor or the prosecutor's

designee, and the offender may provide information relevant to the determination of the

amount of restitution. * * * the amount the court orders as restitution shall not exceed the
                                               3

Case No. 2023-L-012
amount of the economic loss suffered by the victim as a direct and proximate result of the

commission of the offense.”

       {¶14} “‘Economic loss’ means any economic detriment suffered by a victim as a

direct and proximate result of the commission of an offense.” R.C. 2929.01(L).

       {¶15} Trost contends that the record does not support the amount of restitution

ordered. He argues that Griffin’s statements regarding his out-of-pocket expenses are

insufficient to determine the amount of restitution owed without providing additional

documentation.

       {¶16} When reviewing orders of restitution, appellate courts review the record to

determine whether or not “the amount of the restitution [is] supported by competent,

credible evidence * * * from which the court can discern the amount of the restitution to a

reasonable degree of certainty.” State v. Smith, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2021-P-0073,

2023-Ohio-126, 206 N.E.3d 138, ¶ 19.

       {¶17} A “victim may establish the loss through documentary evidence or

testimony. No absolute requirement exists that the victim demonstrate the loss through

documentary evidence.” State v. Morgan, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2005-L-135, 2006-Ohio-

4166, ¶ 30 quoting In re Hatfield, 4th Dist. Lawrence No. 03CA14, 2003-Ohio-5404, ¶ 9.

       {¶18} The record before us establishes that the property was valued at

$480,000.00. Griffin testified that the property sustained extensive damage to the roof,

second floor, and basement because of the fire. The extensive damage is further noted

in the presentence investigation. Griffin testified that insurance covered some of the

damages to the property but did not provide an amount. Griffin indicated that he had spent

                                            4

Case No. 2023-L-012
$60,000.00 on framing, roofing, electrical, HVAC and other materials to make repairs to

the property, in addition to the percentage received from the insurance company.

       {¶19} A trial court, when determining the amount of economic loss suffered by a

victim, must consider any offset of the victim’s loss by amounts received from an insurer.

State v. Laudermilk, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2021-P-0054, 2022-Ohio-659, ¶ 52 citing State

v. Johnson, 4th Dist. Washington No. 03CA11, 2004-Ohio-2236, ¶ 11.

       {¶20} Griffin testified that his out-of-pocket expenses were in addition to the

amount covered by the insurance company. While additional documentation may be

desired by appellant, we cannot clearly and convincingly find that the restitution order was

unsupported by the record or otherwise contrary to law. The trial court found Griffin’s

testimony to be credible, and we will not second-guess its credibility determination. See,

e.g., State v. Williams, 99 Ohio St.3d 435, 2003–Ohio–4164, 793 N.E.2d 449, at ¶ 36. As

such, the trial court’s restitution order was appropriate.

       {¶21} Accordingly, appellant’s sole assignment of error lacks merit.

       {¶22} For the reasons discussed in this opinion, the judgment of the Lake County

Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

JOHN J. EKLUND, P.J.,

MATT LYNCH, J.,

concur.

                                              5

Case No. 2023-L-012