Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Allen

Supreme Court of Ohio

November 21, 2019

The State of Ohio, Appellant,
v.
Allen, Appellee.

          Submitted May 8, 2019

          Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 17AP-296, 2018-Ohio-1529.

          Ron O'Brien, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, and Barbara A. Farnbacher, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant.

          Yeura R. Venters, Franklin County Public Defender, and Robert D. Essex, Assistant Public Defender, for appellee.

          DeWine, J.

         {¶ 1} A statute authorizes a trial court to order an offender to pay restitution to a "victim" who suffers an economic loss. See R.C. 2929.18(A)(1). Under this law, is a bank that cashes a forged check and then recredits the depositor's account a victim to which the forger can be required to pay restitution? We say yes. The court of appeals held otherwise, so we reverse its judgment.

         I. A check-cashing scheme and a restitution order

         {¶ 2} Zachary Allen cashed seven forged checks at branches of three different banks. He pleaded guilty to seven counts of forgery, and the trial court ordered Allen to pay restitution to the banks in the amount of the forged checks. In the process the trial court rejected Allen's argument that the banks were not victims and hence not possible beneficiaries of a restitution order under R.C. 2929.18. Allen appealed, and the Tenth District Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment and vacated the restitution order. The court of appeals reasoned that the banks were not "victims" for purposes of R.C. 2929.18 but instead were third parties who had reimbursed the true victims-the account holders.

         II. R.C. 2929.18(A)(1) authorizes restitution to a victim that suffered an economic loss

         {¶ 3} We must determine the proper construction of R.C. 2929.18(A)(1). R.C. 2929.18(A) allows a trial court to impose various "financial sanctions" against a defendant who committed a felony, including "[r]estitution by the offender to the victim." R.C. 2929.18(A)(1) states:

Financial sanctions that may be imposed pursuant to this section include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) Restitution by the offender to the victim of the offender's crime or any survivor of the victim, in an amount based on the victim's economic loss.

         Thus, the statute authorized the trial court to order Allen to pay restitution to the bank if the bank (1) was a victim and (2) suffered an economic loss.

         III. The ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.