from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas No. 16CR-1339
brief: Ron O'Brien, Prosecuting Attorney, and Valerie
Swanson, for appellee. Argued: Valerie Swanson.
brief: Yeura R. Venters, Public Defender, and Robert D.
Essex, for appellant. Argued: Robert D. Essex.
1} Jonas Allen, defendant-appellant, appeals the
judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas in
which the court, pursuant to a jury trial, found him guilty
of non-support of dependents, a violation of R.C. 2919.21,
and a fourth-degree felony.
2} Appellant has two children, C.A. and M.R., by the
same mother. Appellant was ordered to pay child support for
both M.R. (case No. 15CR-402) and C.A. (case No. 16CR-1339).
The present case regards C.A.'s case.
3} On January 28, 2015, appellant was indicted for
non-support of dependents with regard to M.R. and pled guilty
to the offense on December 10, 2015. Appellant was sentenced
on February 5, 2016.
4} On March 9, 2016, appellant was indicted on one
count of non-support of dependents with regard to C.A. A jury
trial was held, after which the jury found him guilty on the
count as alleged in the indictment. Subsequently, the court
held a sentencing hearing. On July 10, 2017, the trial court
issued a judgment entry in which it sentenced appellant to
five years of community control, ordered appellant to comply
with all present and future child support orders, and ordered
appellant to pay arrearages of $98, 219.72, which the court
noted was the combined child-support arrearages for both
children. The court then indicated "[t]he total fine and
financial sanction judgment is $98, 219.72." The court
reserved a prison sentence of 12 months. Appellant appeals
the judgment, asserting the following assignment of error:
The trial court erred when it ordered restitution for
outstanding arrearages on a child support order for which
appellant was not indicted.
5} Appellant argues in his sole assignment of error
that the trial court erred when it ordered restitution for
outstanding arrearages on the child support order for M.R.,
for which he was not indicted in the present case. Appellant
contends a court may only order a felony offender to pay
restitution for those losses caused by the offense for which
the defendant was convicted and sentenced pursuant to R.C.
6} The State of Ohio, plaintiff-appellee, counters
that appellant's argument is based on the faulty premise
the court's order to pay the total child-support
arrearages of $98, 219.72 was restitution. Instead, the state
asserts, the court expressly stated at the sentencing hearing
the payment of the arrearage total for both children was not
restitution but a condition of his community control, and the
court listed the total arrearages as part of the conditions
of community control in the judgment entry.
7} We agree with the state's position and
believe the record makes the trial court's intent
abundantly clear that the order that appellant pay arrearages
of $98, 219.72 was a condition of community control and not
an order for restitution. At the sentencing hearing, the
following exchange took place between the prosecutor and the
[Prosecutor]: The only other thing I have, Your Honor, is
that $98, 219.72, I appreciate that the Court is
acknowledging that, that is noted as not ...