Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common
Pleas Case No. CR-17-617166-A
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT John F. Corrigan
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Michael C. O'Malley Cuyahoga
County Prosecutor By: Ashley B. Kilbane Mary M. Frey
Assistant County Prosecutors
BEFORE: Laster Mays, J., McCormack, P.J., and E.T. Gallagher,
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
LASTER MAYS, JUDGE
Defendant-appellant David E. Eichelserfer
("Eichelserfer") appeals the trial court's
restitution award to the victim, David Nieders
("Nieders"), and asks this court to vacate the
award and adjust the total restitution award accordingly. We
Eichelserfer pleaded guilty to one count of burglary, a
fourth-degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2911.12(B). He was
sentenced to one year of community control sanctions and
ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $4, 393.
Eichelserfer was caught attempting to break into a value
transfer machine ("VTM"), located in an apartment
building, that allowed tenants to pay for laundry services in
the building. The tenants would insert cash into the VTM
unit, and the unit would credit the tenant's VTM card.
The tenant then could use that card to operate the washers
and dryers located in the building's basement.
Eichelserfer attempted to burglarize the VTM unit to steal
the cash that the machine contained. In his attempt to gain
access, Eichelserfer damaged the VTM unit.
During the restitution hearing, the trial court allowed
Nieders, the owner of the building to explain how the VTM
unit was damaged and the costs associated with the damage.
Taking into account Nieders's testimony, the trial court
ordered restitution in the amount of $4, 393, which included
replacement of the damaged padlock, the VTM unit and
installation, and the labor for the woodwork around the door
that Eichelserfer damaged. Eichelserfer disagreed with the
court's restitution order and filed this appeal assigning
one error for our review:
I. The trial court abused its discretion in ordering
restitution in an amount that did not bear a reasonable
relation to the actual loss suffered.
In Eichelserfer's sole assignment of error, he argues
that the restitution amount ordered by the trial court is not
reasonable because the VTM unit only suffered cosmetic damage
and is still functioning as it was intended. We review an
order of restitution under the abuse of discretion
standard. State v. Lalain, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.
95857, 2011-Ohio-4813, ¶ 9. A restitution award lies
within the discretion of the trial court and will not be
disturbed unless the trial court commits an abuse of
discretion. State v. Welch, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.
105158, 2017-Ohio-7887, ¶ 19. An abuse of discretion
implies that the trial court's attitude is unreasonable,
arbitrary or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore,
5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983).