[Cite as State v. Serres, 2014-Ohio-5281.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
FULTON COUNTY
State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. F-14-002
Appellee Trial Court No. 13CR100
v.
Michael A. Serres DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: November 26, 2014
*****
Scott A. Haselman, Fulton County Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Charles M. Saunders, for appellant.
*****
JENSEN, J.
Introduction
{¶ 1} This case involves the defendant-appellant’s appeal of a January 28, 2014
judgment that ordered him to pay $37,300 in restitution to the victim. For the following
reasons, we reverse and remand the matter to the lower court for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} On September 16, 2013, a grand jury sitting in Fulton County, Ohio,
indicted appellant, Michael A. Serres, on four felony offenses: burglary, in violation of
R.C. 2911.12(A)(3), a felony in the third degree (count I); safecracking, in violation of
R.C. 2911.31(A), a felony in the fourth degree (count II); theft from an elderly person or
disabled adult, in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1), a felony in the third degree (count III);
and grand theft, in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1), a felony in the third degree (count
IV).
{¶ 3} Appellant and the state of Ohio reached a plea agreement whereby appellant
agreed to plead guilty to counts I and III. In exchange, the state agreed not to prosecute
counts II and IV.
{¶ 4} At a January 27, 2014 hearing, the trial court accepted appellant’s plea,
found him guilty and, following a recitation of his due process rights, sentenced appellant
to 24 months in prison as to counts I and III, to be served concurrently. The trial court
also ordered appellant to make restitution to the victim in the amount of $37,300.
Appellant’s trial counsel objected to the restitution amount, which the trial court
overruled. The trial court issued a sentencing order, journalized on January 28, 2014,
reflecting appellant’s plea, sentence and order of restitution.
2.
{¶ 5} On February 25, 2014, appellant’s trial counsel filed a notice of appeal.
Appellant asserts one assignment of error for our review.
The trial court abused its discretion and committed reversible error
in violation of R.C. 2929.18(A)(1) when it refused to hold a hearing anent
[sic] the restitution owed to the victim by the defendant when the defense
disputed said amount.
Law and Analysis
{¶ 6} In his sole assignment of error, appellant argues that the trial court erred in
failing to hold a hearing on the issue of restitution. The state concurs and urges this court
to remand this matter to the lower court for the limited purpose of holding a hearing
pursuant to R.C. 2929.18(A)(1).
{¶ 7} R.C. 2929.18(A)(1) provides in part, “[i]f the court decides to impose
restitution, the court shall hold a hearing on restitution if the offender * * * disputes the
amount.” See also State v. Lalain, 136 Ohio St.3d 248, 2013-Ohio-3093, 994 N.E.2d
423, ¶ 22. (“A hearing is mandated only if the offender, victim, or survivor disputes the
[restitution] amount.”).
{¶ 8} In this case, the transcript from the January 27, 2014 sentencing hearing
demonstrates that appellant, through his counsel, objected to the restitution amount:
THE COURT: That is-I’m going to give you an order and I don’t
know whether you’re ever going to be able to get it covered, but, there’s
going to be an order for the * * * [$300.00] property damage, [$30.000]
3.
property loss. [$6,000] money taken. And [$1000] for the insurance
deductible. That’s [$37,300.00].
[APPELLANT’S TRIAL COUNSEL]: Your Honor, we would
object to that restitution amount in this particular case. For one thing, we
were just provided with all of the outstanding restitution issues just before
this hearing. So there is no way for us to verify whether it’s accurate. And
that -
THE COURT: Your objection is in the record. And that may be of
some substance down the road. Anything else at this time?
[PROSECUTOR] KENNEDY: No Your Honor.
THE COURT: That will be all.
[APPELLANT’S TRIAL COUNSEL]: Thank you.
[Hearing adjourned.]
{¶ 9} Because appellant's counsel specifically disputed the amount of restitution,
the trial court was required to hold a hearing on that issue, as a matter of law. The court’s
failure to do so constitutes reversible error. Therefore, we find appellant’s sole
assignment of error is well-taken.
{¶ 10} The judgment of the Fulton County Common Pleas Court is reversed only
insofar as the lower court failed to hold a hearing on the amount of restitution to be paid
by appellant. State v. Perna, 6th Dist. Wood No. WD-11-043, 2012-Ohio-5557, ¶ 43.
4.
Upon remand, the trial court shall conduct an evidentiary hearing in compliance with the
requirements of R.C. 2929.18(A)(1). The trial court’s judgment is affirmed in all other
respects.
{¶ 11} Appellee is ordered to pay the court costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R.
24.
Judgment affirmed, in part,
and reversed, in part.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See, also, 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Arlene Singer, J. _______________________________
JUDGE
Stephen A. Yarbrough, P.J.
_______________________________
James D. Jensen, J. JUDGE
CONCUR.
_______________________________
JUDGE
5.