State v. Norman

         Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-16-604823-A

         REVERSED AND REMANDED

          ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Gregory T. Stralka

          ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Michael C. O'Malley Cuyahoga County Prosecutor BY: Janna R. Steinruck

          BEFORE: Celebrezze, J., Stewart, P.J., and Boyle, J.

          JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

          FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J.

         {¶1} Defendant-appellant, Lakisha Norman ("appellant"), brings this appeal challenging the trial court's order of restitution. Specifically, appellant argues that there was no documentation supporting the trial court's restitution order and that the trial court erred by imposing restitution without holding a hearing. After a thorough review of the record and law, we vacate the trial court's restitution order and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

         I. Factual and Procedural History

         {¶2} The instant matter arose from a February 2016 incident during which appellant got into a motor vehicle accident while she was driving her mother's car without permission. The vehicle was damaged in the accident and impounded thereafter.

         {¶3} On April 5, 2016, the Cuyahoga County Grand Jury returned a six-count indictment charging appellant with (1) receiving stolen property, in violation of R.C. 2913.51(A); (2)-(3) endangering children, in violation of R.C. 2919.22(A); (4)-(5) endangering children, in violation of R.C. 2919.22(_)(1); and (6) criminal damaging or endangering, in violation of R.C. 2909.06(A)(1).

         {¶4} The parties reached a plea agreement under which the state amended Count 1 to unauthorized use of a vehicle, in violation of R.C. 2913.03(A). On July 27, 2016, appellant pled guilty to the amended Count 1 and Counts 2 through 6 as charged in the indictment.

         {¶5} During the change of plea hearing, the state informed the trial court that appellant agreed to pay restitution to the victim for the damage to her vehicle. The state indicated that the victim had recommended restitution in the amount of $1, 500. Appellant's counsel disputed the victim's restitution recommendation and requested the state to produce documentation of the victim's economic losses. The parties agreed that the amount of restitution would be determined at the time of sentencing. The trial court ordered a presentence investigation report and set the matter for sentencing.

         {¶6} The trial court held a sentencing hearing on August 17, 2016. The trial court sentenced appellant to a jail term of six months on all six misdemeanor counts. The trial court ordered the six counts to run concurrently. The trial court suspended execution of the sentence and placed appellant on probation for one year. Furthermore, the trial court ordered appellant to pay restitution to the victim in the amount of $1, 500. The trial court's sentencing journal entry provides, in relevant part, "restitution ordered in the amount of $1, 500.00 to [the victim.]"

         {¶7} Appellant filed a motion to reconsider the trial court's judgment on September 1, 2016. In her motion, appellant requested that the trial court "reconsider and modify" its orders requiring appellant to pay restitution to the victim and participate in the home detention GPS monitoring program. The record ...