Court of Appeals of Ohio, Twelfth District, Madison
APPEAL FROM MADISON COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No.
Stephen Pronai, Madison County Prosecuting Attorney, Rachel
Price and Nicholas Adkins, for plaintiff-appellee
Charlyn Bohland, for defendant-appellant
1} Defendant-appellant, Brandon Chaff in, appeals
from the sentence he received in the Madison County Court of
Common Pleas after he pled guilty to one count of aggravated
burglary. For the reasons outlined below, we affirm.
2} On April 14, 2016, the Madison County Grand Jury
returned an indictment charging Chaffin with aggravated
burglary in violation of R.C. 2911.11(A)(1), aggravated
burglary in violation of R.C. 2911.11(A)(2), and kidnaping in
violation of R.C. 2905.01(A)(2), all first-degree felonies.
Chaffin was also charged with felonious assault in violation
of R.C. 2903.11(A)(1), a second-degree felony. The charges
arose after Chaffin and an accomplice forcefully broke into a
London, Madison County, home where they then assaulted a
female victim inside before stealing several items, including
jewelry, her cell phone, and other electronics. During this
time, Chaffin broke the victim's nose and held her at
gunpoint. At the time of the offense, Chaffin was 16 years
old and on probation.
3} On June 6, 2016, Chaffin entered into a plea
agreement and pled guilty to aggravated burglary in violation
of R.C. 2911.11(A)(1) in exchange for the remaining offenses
being dismissed. After conducting the required Crim.R. 11
plea colloquy, the trial court accepted Chaffin's guilty
plea and ordered a presentence investigation report be
completed. The matter was then scheduled for sentencing on
July 21, 2016.
4} At the sentencing hearing, and upon reviewing the
presentence investigation report, the trial court noted that
the victim suffered serious physical, psychological, and
economic harm as a result of Chaffin's actions. The trial
court also noted that Chaffin was on probation at the time of
the offense. The trial court then sentenced Chaffin to seven
years in prison and ordered him to pay the victim $6, 579.36
in restitution. Chaffin did not dispute the amount of
restitution imposed. The trial court also ordered Chaffin to
pay court costs and notified him that he would be subject to
a mandatory five-year term of postrelease control.
5} Chaffin now appeals from this sentence, raising
three assignments of error for review.
6} Assignment of Error No. 1:
7} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT IMPOSED A FINANCIAL
SANCTION WITHOUT CONSIDERING BRANDON CHAFFIN'S PRESENT
AND FUTURE ABILITY TO PAY THE SANCTION, IN VIOLATION OF R.C.
8} In his first assignment of error, Chaffin argues
the trial court erred by ordering him to pay restitution
without first considering his present and future ability to
pay that financial sanction. We disagree.
9} Pursuant to R.C. 2929.19(B)(5), which was
previously codified under R.C. 2929.19(B)(6), before imposing
a financial sanction, including restitution, the trial court
must first "consider the offender's present and
future ability to pay the amount of the sanction[.]"
There are no express factors that must be considered or
specific findings that must be made regarding the
offender's ability to pay. State v. Dandridge,
12th Dist. Butler No. CA2003-12-330, 2005-Ohio-1077, ¶
6. In fact, although preferable for appellate review,
"'a trial court need not explicitly state in its
judgment entry that it considered a defendant's ability
to pay a financial sanction.'" State v.
Dehner, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2012-12-090,
2013-Ohio-3576, ¶ 47, quoting State v.
Henderson, 4th Dist. Vinton No. 07CA659, 2008-Ohio-2063,
¶ 7. Nevertheless, there must be some evidence in the
record to show that the trial court acted in accordance with
the legislative mandate that it consider the offender's
present and future ability to pay. State v. Lang,
12th Dist. Brown No. CA2011-03-007, 2011-Ohio-5742, ¶
12, citing State v. Adkins, 144 Ohio App.3d 633, 647
(12th Dist.2001). This court looks to the totality of the
record to see if this requirement has been satisfied.
State v. Rabe, 12th Dist. Clermont No.
CA2013-09-068, 2014-Ohio-2008, ¶ 74.
10} "[T]he proper standard of review for
analyzing the imposition of restitution as a part of a felony
sentence is whether the sentence complies with R.C.
2953.08(G)(2)(b)." State v. Collins, 12th Dist.
Warren No. CA2014-11-135, 2015-Ohio-3710, ¶ 31. Pursuant
to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b), this court may increase, reduce, or
otherwise modify a sentence that is appealed, or vacate the
sentence and remand the matter for resentencing, if we
clearly and convincingly find the sentence is contrary to
law. State v. Geldrich, 12th Dist. Warren No.
CA2015-11-103, 2016-Ohio-3400, ¶ 12. The term
"sentence" as utilized in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b)
encompasses an order of restitution. Collins at
¶ 31, fn. 1. This is an "extremely