Court Opinion

ID: 9945386
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-27 19:10:58.674422+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:28.174655
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Scott, 2024-Ohio-712.]

                                         COURT OF APPEALS
                                     GUERNSEY COUNTY, OHIO
                                     FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO                                 :       JUDGES:
                                              :       Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
        Plaintiff-Appellee                    :       Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
                                              :       Hon. Andrew J. King, J.
-vs-                                          :
                                              :
JASON L. SCOTT                                :       Case No. 23 CA 000016
                                              :
        Defendant-Appellant                   :       OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:                              Appeal from the Court of Common
                                                      Pleas, Case No. 22 CR 213

JUDGMENT:                                             Reversed

DATE OF JUDGMENT:                                     February 27, 2024

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee                                For Defendant-Appellant

JASON R. FARLEY                                       PATRICK L. BROWN
627 Wheeling Avenue                                   439 North Market Street
Cambridge, OH 43725                                   Suite A
                                                      Wooster, OH 44691
Guernsey County, Case No. 23 CA 000016                                                 2

King, J.

       {¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant, Jason L. Scott, appeals the June 1, 2023 judgment

entry of the Court of Common Pleas of Guernsey County, Ohio, ordering him to pay

restitution in the amount of $35,262. Plaintiff-Appellee is the state of Ohio. We reverse

the trial court.

                        FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

       {¶ 2} On December 6, 2022, the Guernsey County Grand Jury indicted Scott on

one count of breaking and entering in violation of R.C. 2911.13 and one count of

aggravated possession of drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.11. Said charges arose from

an incident on September 29, 2022, wherein police officers were dispatched to a property

after receiving a call from the homeowner of at least three individuals trespassing into

various garages/storage sheds on the property. Police discovered Scott in one of the

buildings; no other individuals were found. Previous break-ins and thefts by others have

occurred on this property.

       {¶ 3} On April 10, 2023, Scott pled guilty to the charges. The trial court ordered

a presentence investigation report and set a sentencing hearing for May 30, 2023. During

the sentencing hearing, the state requested restitution. By judgment entry filed June 1,

2023, the trial court sentenced Scott to three years of community control and ordered him

to pay $35,262 in restitution, noting damage to catalytic converters, vehicles, and

miscellaneous tools and items.

       {¶ 4} Scott filed an appeal with the following assignment of error:

                                            I
Guernsey County, Case No. 23 CA 000016                                                      3

       {¶ 5} "THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN ORDERING $35,262

IN RESTITUTION."

                                              I

       {¶ 6} In his sole assignment of error, Scott claims the trial court abused its

discretion in ordering him to pay $35,262 in restitution. We agree.

       {¶ 7} We review restitution orders under an abuse of discretion standard. State

v. Cook, 5th Dist. Fairfield No. 16-CA-28, 2017-Ohio-1503, ¶ 8; State v. Andrews, 5th

Dist. Delaware No. 15 CAA 12 0099, 2016-Ohio-7389, ¶ 40. "Abuse of discretion" means

an attitude that is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable. Huffman v. Hair Surgeon,

Inc., 19 Ohio St.3d 83, 87, 482 N.E.2d 1248 (1985). Most instances of abuse of discretion

will result in decisions that are simply unreasonable, rather than decisions that are

unconscionable or arbitrary. AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Urban

Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157, 161, 553 N.E.2d 597 (1990). An unreasonable

decision is one backed by no sound reasoning process which would support that decision.

Id. "It is not enough that the reviewing court, were it deciding the issue de novo, would

not have found that reasoning process to be persuasive, perhaps in view of countervailing

reasoning processes that would support a contrary result." Id.

       {¶ 8} "The amount of the restitution must be supported by competent, credible

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

degree of certainty." State v. Gears, 135 Ohio App.3d 297, 300, 733 N.E.2d 683 (1999).

"Generally, the right to order restitution is limited to the actual damage or loss caused by

the offense of which the defendant is convicted. Implicit in this principle is that the amount
Guernsey County, Case No. 23 CA 000016                                                         4

claimed must be established to a reasonable degree of certainty before restitution can be

ordered." State v. Williams, 34 Ohio App.3d 33, 34, 516 N.E.2d 1270 (2d Dist.1986).

       {¶ 9} R.C. 2929.18(A)(1) permits a trial court to impose restitution "by the offender

to the victim of the offender's criminal offense or the victim's estate in an amount based

on the victim's economic loss" and the amount "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." "Economic loss" is defined in R.C. 2929.01(L) and means:

              any economic detriment suffered by a victim as a direct and

       proximate result of the commission of an offense and includes any loss of

       income due to lost time at work because of any injury caused to the victim,

       and any property loss, medical cost, or funeral expense incurred as a result

       of the commission of the offense. "Economic loss" does not include non-

       economic loss or any punitive or exemplary damages.

       {¶ 10} During the sentencing hearing, the trial court entertained arguments on

treatment in lieu of conviction and restitution. As for restitution, defense counsel argued

when Scott was found by the police officers, he was inside a garage/storage shed holding

only a flashlight. May 30, 2023 T. at 9. No items were scattered about or set in a pile as

if to steal them. Id. Although the victim provided a list of his losses, it is "a cumulative list

of all items missing * * * involving all break-ins at the residence." Id. at 14. Nothing is

"pigeonholed" to this incident. Id. Defense counsel went through all the items on the list
Guernsey County, Case No. 23 CA 000016                                                  5

and noted Scott was not charged with any criminal damaging, any vandalism charges, or

any theft charges. Id. at 15-17.

       {¶ 11} In response to defense counsel's arguments, the prosecutor stated (Id. at

21):

              There are many items on this list that the facts, as they are presented

       for these convictions, you cannot correlate the damage. For example, the

       first ten items are the missing catalytic converters for those different

       vehicles, the damage to the vehicles. There was - - there was no evidence

       from this investigation that those items were damaged, the vehicles were

       damaged because of the actions from Mr. Scott.

       {¶ 12} The prosecutor informed the trial court the victim was requesting $35,036

in restitution and then stated the following (Id. at 24):

              But as an officer of the court, I would have to agree with Attorney

       Cross as well as the details in the report that is attached to the presentence

       investigation, that there were no specific items that were located on Mr.

       Scott or in the vehicle, that there were items that were displaced on the

       property but those items were recovered, and I don't have any knowledge

       of any actual damage to the building that was entered into by Mr. Scott

       where law enforcement found him that day.
Guernsey County, Case No. 23 CA 000016                                                         6

       {¶ 13} The prosecutor could not confirm that Scott had previously been on the

property. Id. at 24-25. Scott stated he had never been to the property before. Id. at 44.

       {¶ 14} The trial court noted Scott was charged with breaking and entering

occurring on September 29, 2022; he was "not charged with anything that occurred before

that." Id. at 47. In ordering restitution, the trial court then stated the following (Id. at 64):

               The Court finds that catalytic converter damage was $6,026; the

       damage to the three cars was $2,868; miscellaneous was 3,708; and the

       Dyno Flow sensor was 22,660 in the matter.

               I don't have information that you were there on the day or two before

       this or four days before this, but those are the damages that arose that were

       found from this, so I find there is a causal connection between the two.

       {¶ 15} The trial court did not explain the causal connection. The trial court then

ordered Scott to pay $35,262 in restitution. Id.

       {¶ 16} The presentence investigation report includes a handwritten list provided by

the victim of items stolen or damaged. The victim spoke during the sentencing hearing

and alleged Scott was also on his property on September 24, 2022, when many items

were stolen.     Id. at 27-32.     The victim admitted, "[t]his list started on the 24th of

September. All that stuff still existed." Id. at 33. The victim then stated, "[a]nd then on

the 24th all this stuff is stolen." Id. at 35.

       {¶ 17} From the victim's statements, it is unclear whether the items stolen or

damaged on the list occurred on September 24th or the 29th, the day Scott was found to
Guernsey County, Case No. 23 CA 000016                                                  7

be trespassing on the property; it seems the consequential date to the victim was the

24th. But as noted by the trial court, Scott was not charged with anything that occurred

prior to September 29, 2022. He was not charged with theft, criminal damaging, or

vandalism. No catalytic converters had been cut on the 29th, and no items on the list

were found in Scott's possession. We find the items listed on the victim's restitution

request have not been linked to the "actual damage or loss caused by the offense of

which the defendant is convicted."

      {¶ 18} Upon review, we find the trial court abused its discretion in ordering

restitution because there is no evidence the economic loss suffered by the victim in this

case is a direct and proximate result of offenses committed by Scott.

      {¶ 19} The sole assignment of error is granted.

      {¶ 20} The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Guernsey County, Ohio is

hereby reversed, and the matter is remanded to said court to vacate the restitution order.

By King, J.

Hoffman, P.J. and

Baldwin, J. concur.