FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF
LORAIN, OHIO CASE Nos. 16CR093913 16CR093914
C. PATITUCE and MEGAN M. PATITUCE, Attorneys at Law, for
P. WILL, Prosecuting Attorney, and BRIAN P. MURPHY, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
A. TEODOSIO, PRESIDING JUDGE.
Appellants, Jaleh Presutto-Saghafi and Phillip Presutto Jr.
("the Presuttos"), appeal from the judgment of the
Lorain County Court of Common Pleas. This Court affirms.
The Amherst School District ("the District")
participates in a program to serve students with special
needs, whereby students spend half the day in school and half
the day receiving specialized services outside of school. The
parents of these students pay third party service providers
out of pocket, submit invoices to the District, and, in turn,
receive reimbursement. The Presuttos have a child who was
enrolled in the program from July of 2011 to June of 2014.
Inconsistencies between the amounts paid by the Presuttos and
the amounts reimbursed by the District led to an
investigation and, ultimately, criminal charges being filed
against the Presuttos.
The Presuttos pled guilty to unauthorized use of property and
forgery, and the trial court ordered a pre-sentence
investigation report ("PSI"). The court later held
two restitution hearings. At sentencing, the court sentenced
the Presuttos to two years of community control and ordered
them to pay restitution in the amount of $36, 002.75 to the
District along with court costs and supervision fees.
The Presuttos now appeal from the trial court's judgment,
ordering them to pay restitution in the amount of $36,
002.75, and raise one assignment of error for this
STATE FAILED TO PROVE THE RESTITUTION FIGURE BY A
PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE.
In their sole assignment of error, the Presuttos argue that
the State failed to prove the restitution amount by a
preponderance of the evidence and, thus, the trial court
erred and abused its discretion in ordering a restitution
amount that bore no reasonable relationship to the actual
losses suffered. We disagree.
This Court has historically reviewed restitution orders under
an abuse of discretion standard. See, e.g., State v.
Esterle, 9th Dist. Medina No. 06CA0003-M,
2007-Ohio-1350, ¶ 5; State v. Myers, 9th Dist.
Wayne No. 06CA0003, 2006-Ohio-5958, ¶ 12. "The term
'abuse of discretion' connotes more than an error of
law or judgment; it implies that the court's attitude is
unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable."
Blakemore v. Blakemore,5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219
(1983). When applying an abuse of discretion standard, a