Court Opinion

ID: 9947466
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-04 21:09:37.094454+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:28.874238
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Williams, 2024-Ohio-788.]

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

STATE OF OHIO,                                    CASE NO. 2023-G-0020

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

LOUIS J. WILLIAMS, JR.,
                                                  Trial Court No. 2022 C 000193
                 Defendant-Appellant.

                                              OPINION

                                       Decided: March 4, 2024
                                     Judgment: Appeal dismissed

James R. Flaiz, Geauga County Prosecutor, and Christian A. Bondra, Assistant
Prosecutor, Courthouse Annex, 231 Main Street, Suite 3A, Chardon, OH 44024 (For
Plaintiff-Appellee).

R. Robert Umholtz, Geauga County Public Defender and Paul J. Mooney, Chief
Assistant Geauga County Public Defender, 211 Main Street, Chardon, OH 44024 (For
Defendant-Appellant).

ROBERT J. PATTON, J.

        {¶1}     Appellant, Louis J. Williams, Jr. (“Williams”), appeals the order of the

Geauga County Court of Common Pleas requiring him to pay restitution in the amount to

$4,039.45, as a part of his plan for intervention in lieu of conviction (“ILC”). For the

following reasons, this appeal is dismissed.

        {¶2}     On February 1, 2023, Williams pled guilty to theft of an ATV from Just for

Fun Honda. The trial court granted treatment in lieu of a conviction. On March 1, 2023, a

separate restitution hearing was held. According to transcripts of the hearing, on January
8, 2021, Williams entered Just for Fun Honda and purchased an ATV. Williams split

payment between two credit cards to make the purchase. Shortly afterwards, Just for Fun

Honda’s credit card processing company informed them that the purchase had been

subject to a chargeback. Just for Fun Honda refuted the chargeback but was denied

payment for the cost of the ATV, which was $3,940.92. Brian Haueter (“Haueter”), the

General Manager of Just for Fun Honda, testified that the processing fees lost on the

transaction totaled $98.53.

      {¶3}   Williams’ request for intervention in lieu of conviction was granted on

February 6, 2023. The order stated:

             [It is therefore ordered] that all criminal proceedings against
             the defendant be and they are hereby stayed and that
             defendant shall serve a two (2) year period of
             rehabilitation/probation pursuant to the intervention plan
             approved by the Court. In addition, the Court ordered the
             defendant comply with the conditions of probation as
             determined by the Court of Common Pleas and journalized
             March 7, 2019 and on the following additional conditions:

             1. Defendant shall obey the laws of the State of Ohio and the
                United States.

             2. Defendant shall not leave the State of Ohio without the
                permission of the court or his supervising officer.

             3. Defendant shall not possess nor consume any alcohol or
                drugs unless prescribed by a M.D., D.O. or dentist.

             4. Defendant shall not enter bars or places where alcohol is
                served as a primary source of income.

             5. Defendant shall gain and maintain full-time employment.

             6. Defendant shall submit to random alcohol/drug testing by
                means of breath, blood or urine sample.

             7. Defendant shall pay a supervision fee of $300.00.

                                           2

Case No. 2023-G-0020
              8. Defendant shall follow Dr. Michelson’s recommendations
                 in the ILC report.

       {¶4}   Shortly after these conditions are listed, the order states: “The restitution

hearing shall be set for Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 1:30 PM by way of a separate

notice.”

       {¶5}   In an order filed May 10, 2023, Williams was ordered to pay the aggregate

total of Just for Fun’s losses amounting to $4,039.45 in restitution.

       {¶6}   During the restitution hearing, Haueter testified that Just for Fun Honda has

insurance that covers theft offenses, and that they did not file a claim. The trial court

allowed the parties to brief the issue of whether there is a requirement that a victim file a

claim if insurance coverage exists prior to filing a restitution order.

       {¶7}   In the May 10, 2023 order, the trial court stated, “The law is clear that if the

victim makes an insurance claim, the amount of restitution is required to be reduced by

amount covered by insurance. The issue before this Court in this matter is whether the

victim’s right to recovery is limited, where the victim chooses not to submit a claim to

insurance. * * * [T]his Court does not find any authority that requires the victim to make a

claim against its insurance.”

       {¶8}   Williams timely appealed the order of the trial court and raised the following

assignment of error: “The trial court erred in ordering defendant-appellant to pay

restitution without having the proper evidence.” He also presented the following issue for

review: “Did the trial court error [sic] in ordering [d]efendant-[a]ppellant to pay restitution

without considering the amount that could have been covered by the victim’s insurance?”

       {¶9}   This matter was submitted on the briefs on November 28, 2023. On

December 6, 2023, this Court issued a show cause order regarding whether the entry at
                                               3

Case No. 2023-G-0020
issue in this appeal is a final appealable order. While Appellant was granted additional

time to file a response to the order, appellant did not file a supplemental brief or other

responsive filing.1

       {¶10} An appellate court’s jurisdiction is limited to review of final orders and

judgments that are appealable. Davis v. Border, 170 Ohio App.3d 758, 2007-Ohio-692,

869 N.E.2d 46, ¶ 10 (11th Dist.), citing Klein v. Bendix-Westinghouse Automotive Air

Brake Co., 13 Ohio St.2d 85, 86, 234 N.E.2d 587 (1968).

       {¶11} “To be final and appealable, an order must comply with R.C. 2505.02 * * *.

R.C. 2505.02 provides: ‘An order is a final order * * * when it is one of the following: (1)

An order that affects a substantial right in an action that in effect determines the action

and prevents a judgment; (2) An order that affects a substantial right made in a special

proceeding * * *.’” Davis at ¶ 11.

       {¶12} R.C. 2951.041 gives the court discretion to grant an offender ILC if the

statutory requirements are met.

       {¶13} R.C. 2951.041(D)(3) provides:

              The terms and conditions of the intervention plan required
              under division (D)(2) of this section shall require the offender,
              for at least one year, but not more than five years, from the
              date on which the court grants the order of intervention in lieu
              of conviction, to abstain from the use of illegal drugs and
              alcohol, to participate in treatment and recovery support
              services, and to submit to regular random testing for drug and
              alcohol use and may include any other treatment terms and
              conditions, or terms and conditions similar to community
              control sanctions, which may include community service or
              restitution, that are ordered by the court.

(Emphasis added.)

1. Appellant’s response was due on or before January 25, 2024.
                                                4

Case No. 2023-G-0020
       {¶14} Here, the trial court ordered Williams to pay restitution as a part of his ILC

plan, pursuant to the provisions of R.C. 2951.041(D)(3). The Supreme Court of Ohio has

noted that Ohio appellate courts have held that a decision granting ILC is not appealable

by a defendant under R.C. 2505.02(B)(1) or (2). State v. Yontz, 169 Ohio St.3d 55, 2022-

Ohio-2745, 201 N.E.3d 867, ¶ 18. “Under an ILC order * * * the proceedings are stayed

pending a defendant’s successful completion of the terms of ILC. * * * Consequently, an

order granting ILC does not contain a conviction or a sentence, and, therefore, the

criminal case is not yet complete while a defendant is subject to the terms of ILC” Id.,

citing State v. Slack, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 28921, 2021-Ohio-974, ¶ 4.

       {¶15} The question then becomes, is an order of restitution as a condition of an

ILC plan a final appealable order for purposes of R.C. 2505.02?

       {¶16} While the issue of whether a restitution order as a condition of an ILC plan

affects a substantial right for purposes of R.C. 2505.02 has not been directly addressed

in the Eleventh District, Ohio appellate courts have held that such an order is not final and

appealable. See State v. Bellman, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 15CA010525, 2015-Ohio-2303, ¶

10, and Slack, 2021-Ohio-974, ¶ 16; but see State v. Weldon, 12th Dist. Warren No.

CA2011-01-005, 2011-Ohio-4345 (appellate court reviewed an order appealing restitution

as part of an ILC plan without mentioning finality of the order).

       {¶17} Here, in its discretion, the trial court granted Williams ILC, staying the

underlying criminal proceeding. An order of restitution was issued as a requirement of his

intervention plan. As such, his underlying conviction is not final, and thus, the order of

restitution is not a final appealable order. Consistent with the Ohio courts’ decisions noted

above, we decline to address this appeal for its lack of finality under R.C. 2505.02.

                                             5

Case No. 2023-G-0020
      {¶18} For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is dismissed.

EUGENE A. LUCCI, P.J.,

MATT LYNCH, J.,

concur.

                                          6

Case No. 2023-G-0020