[Cite as State v. Green-Sarubbi, 2026-Ohio-877.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAKE COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, CASE NOS. 2025-L-108 CITY OF PAINESVILLE, 2025-L-109
Plaintiff-Appellee, Criminal Appeals from the - vs - Painesville Municipal Court
LIONNIEL DAVEON GREEN-SARUBBI, Trial Court Nos. 2024 TRC 03110 A Defendant-Appellant. 2024 TRC 03110 B
OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
Decided: March 16, 2026 Judgment: Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded
Joseph D. Hada, Painesville City Prosecutor, 1392 SOM Center Road, Mayfield Heights, OH 44124 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
Vanessa R. Clapp, Lake County Public Defender, and Paul J. Lubonovic, Assistant Public Defender, 100 West Erie Street, Painesville, OH 44077 (For Defendant- Appellant).
SCOTT LYNCH, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Lionniel Green-Sarubbi, appeals the restitution order
of the Painesville Municipal Court, finding, on remand, that the victim is entitled to
restitution in the amount of $7,828.80. Because this court’s mandate on remand did not
contemplate holding a new evidentiary hearing, we reverse the order of restitution.
Substantive and Procedural History
{¶2} On June 30, 2024, Green was involved in a motor vehicle accident involving another driver. As a consequence, Green pled guilty to Physical Control of Vehicle while
under the Influence and was ordered to pay restitution.
{¶3} The restitution proceedings were described thus:
On November 25, 2024, a restitution hearing was held. The victim testified that, following an incident with Green, his 2010 Chrysler Town and Country was “totaled.” The estimated cost of repair was $8,900 and, since Green did not have insurance, the victim’s insurance company declared the vehicle a total loss. The victim received $5,671.67 from insurance ($6,171.67 base value minus $500 for the deductible). The victim purchased the vehicle in 2023 for “11,9.” He tried to find “a vehicle of the same year” but was unable to do so. Instead, he purchased a 2016 model with similar mileage for $15,992. The court awarded the victim $6,461.67 in restitution, representing “$5,671.67 for the non-dollars reimbursed to you from your insurance company, along with the tax that you paid on that vehicle of $790.” The court explained its reasoning as follows: “Without any other greater pieces of evidence, some actuary explaining to me the similar vehicles [sic], the best I could do to put you back in a similar position is make sure that he pays for, in total, that original car. You got reimbursed from your insurance company for a portion of it. The remaining portion is what I instituted here as the restitution order.”
State v. Green-Sarubbi, 2025-Ohio-2112, ¶ 3 (11th Dist.).
{¶4} Green appealed the order of restitution, arguing “that it was error for the
municipal court to use the purchase price of the vehicle as the base value for determining
the amount of restitution.” Id. at ¶ 18.
{¶5} This Court rejected Green’s argument, finding no error in the municipal
court’s rationale for determining restitution. We reversed the judgment, however, finding
that the actual amount awarded was inconsistent with the formula:
While we find no error in the municipal court’s intention to award restitution in the amount of the purchase price of the Town and Country minus the amount of the insurance settlement, we agree with Green that this was not the amount actually awarded as
PAGE 2 OF 13
Case Nos. 2025-L-108, 2025-L-109 restitution. Rather, the court awarded the amount of the insurance settlement itself rather than the difference between the purchase price and the settlement. Moreover, as Green points out, it is uncertain exactly what the court considered the purchase price to be. The victim testified that it was “11,9” but the court repeatedly referred to the purchase price as “$10,900.” Because the amount of restitution awarded was identical to the amount received for the insurance settlement, $6,461.67, we find that the amount of the award is not supported by competent and credible evidence and, therefore, reverse for the court to recalculate the amount of the award based on the evidence already presented at the restitution hearing.
(Emphasis added.) Id. at ¶ 13.
{¶6} On remand, on July 10, 2025, the municipal court held a new evidentiary
hearing and recalculated the amount of restitution using a new rationale based on the
new evidence presented at the hearing. Based on the July 2025 hearing, the court found
the following:
1. On November 21, 2023, Victim purchased a 2010 Chrysler Town and Country for $10,900 with additional sale tax of $790.25. The mileage at the time of purchase was 69,625.
2. On June 30, 2024, the Defendant caused a loss of the vehicle. The mileage was 87,878.
3. The Victim’s insurance company asserted to fix said vehicle would cost $8,900.00.
4. The Defendant was uninsured.
5. Victim paid $1,394.47 for a rental vehicle. Victim’s insurance company paid an additional $440 in rental expenses.
6. Victim’s insurance company paid Victim $5,671.67 for the vehicle plus $174.44 in sales tax reimbursement for a total of $5,846.11.
7. Victim could not find another 2010 Chrysler Town and County but was able to purchase a 2106 Chrysler Town and County for $13,500
PAGE 3 OF 13
Case Nos. 2025-L-108, 2025-L-109 to replace the destroyed 2010 vehicle with an additional sale[s] tax of $1,119.44 for a total of $14,619.44. Vehicle mileage was 73,540.
8. Court takes judicial notice that there was much volatility in the used car market during the times these facts occurred. In the wake of COVID-19 pandemic there were supply chain problems for new vehicles and semiconductor shortages. The used car market value index was driven upward as there was little inventory of new vehicles. The Court in its civil docket heard numerous pieces of evidence regarding the events in the used car market.
9. Victim’s mileage at the time of loss was 87,878, and the 2016 Chrysler Town and County was 73,540 a difference of 14,338 miles that must be credited to the Defendant as Victim is entitled to only receive direct and proximate economic loss.
10. The Court finds the replacement vehicle because of the mileage difference has an additional value of 16% or $[2,]339 in value.
11. The Defendant shall make restitution to the Victim as follows: $14,619.44 (2016 Chrysler Town and County $13,500 + $1119.44) -$5,846.11 (Amount paid to Victim by auto insurance $5,671.67 + tax $174.44) -$2,339.00 (Mileage difference between the 2016 vehicle 2010 vehicle is 14,338; which is 16%. 14,619.44 x 16% = $2,339) +$1,394.47 (Victim’s out of pocket rental car expense) $7,828.80 (Total Restitution)
Accordingly, the court ordered the clerk to “journalize a judgment in favor of [the victim]
… for $7,828.80 at 8% annum from November 25, 2024 and the cost of collection.”
{¶7} On September 2, 2025, Green filed Notices of Appeal (Municipal Court
Case Nos. TRC2403110A and TRC2403110B).
Assignments of Error
{¶8} On appeal, Green raises the following assignment of error: “The trial court
abused its discretion when it entered a restitution order that was contrary to law in the
amount of $7,828.80 with a post-judgment interest rate of 8% per annum.”
PAGE 4 OF 13
Case Nos. 2025-L-108, 2025-L-109 {¶9} Green makes two arguments under the sole assignment of error. First, he
argues that the municipal court did not comply with this Court’s mandate after the prior
appeal. Second, he argues that the municipal court lacked authority to order
postjudgment interest as part of a criminal restitution order.
Standard of Review
{¶10} The standard of review for both of Green’s arguments is de novo. State v.
Logan, 2025-Ohio-1772, ¶ 8, 18 (whether a court may impose a particular sentence is a
question of statutory interpretation and reviewed de novo); Phoenix Lighting Group, L.L.C.
v. Genlyte Thomas Group, L.L.C., 2024-Ohio-5729, ¶ 20 (whether a lower court has
followed the appellate court’s mandate is jurisdictional issue reviewed de novo).
Whether the Municipal Court followed the Mandate on Remand from the Prior Appeal
{¶11} The Supreme Court of Ohio has explained the scope of an appellate court’s
mandate as follows:
A trial court’s jurisdiction over a matter is limited once proceedings are complete. See State ex rel. Davis v. Janas, 2020-Ohio-1462, ¶ 11. When a judgment is reversed or affirmed on appeal, however, the appellate court will issue a special mandate to the trial court for execution or for further proceedings. R.C. 2505.39. The trial court is bound by that appellate court’s mandate. Nolan v. Nolan, 11 Ohio St.3d 1, syllabus (1984) (“Absent extraordinary circumstances, such as an intervening decision by the Supreme Court, an inferior court has no discretion to disregard the mandate of a superior court in a prior appeal in the same case.”); see Transamerica [Ins. Co. v. Nolan, 72 Ohio St.3d 320,] at 323-324 (trial court was obligated to comply with the court of appeals’ mandate to enter judgment for the insurers and the trial court’s failure to immediately comply with the mandate did not keep the case alive to allow for further arguments based on subsequent decisions by the Ohio Supreme Court); In re Sanford Fork & Tool Co., 160 U.S. 247, 255 (1895) (“When a case has been once decided by this court on appeal, and remanded to the
PAGE 5 OF 13
Case Nos. 2025-L-108, 2025-L-109 circuit court, whatever was before this court, and disposed of by its decree, is considered as finally settled. The circuit court is bound by the decree as the law of the case, and must carry it into execution according to the mandate.”). A trial court is without authority to extend or vary the mandate given. Nolan at 4; Giancola v. Azem, 2018-Ohio-1694, ¶ 16. And the trial court generally loses jurisdiction to modify its judgment once that judgment has been affirmed on appeal. See Davis at ¶ 11.
Genlyte at ¶ 20.
{¶12} In the prior appeal of this case, this Court approved the municipal court’s
rationale for awarding restitution based on the purchase price of the vehicle but reversed
for the court to determine the amount of restitution “based on the evidence already
presented at the restitution hearing.” Green-Sarubbi, 2025-Ohio-2112, at ¶ 13 (11th
Dist.). By holding a new evidentiary hearing and adopting a new rationale for determining
restitution the municipal court exceeded the scope of this Court’s mandate. Accordingly,
the new order of restitution must be vacated. Allen v. Bennett, 2008-Ohio-4554, ¶ 10 (9th
Dist.) (“the trial court exceeded the scope of this Court’s mandate by conducting an
additional evidentiary hearing,” rather it should have made a “determination … based on
the record before the trial court at the time of our remand”).
{¶13} In the original restitution order, it was uncertain whether the municipal court
considered the purchase price of the 2010 Town and Country was $10,900 or $11,900.
On remand, the court made a definitive finding that the purchase price was $10,900.
{¶14} From the $10,900 purchase price, the municipal court was to deduct the
reimbursement paid to the victim by insurance. At the 2024 restitution hearing, the court
determined the reimbursement to be $5,671.67, the same amount the court determined
PAGE 6 OF 13
Case Nos. 2025-L-108, 2025-L-109 that insurance paid at the 2025 restitution hearing.1 Deducting the reimbursement of
$5,671.67 from the purchase price of $10,900 results in a difference of $5,228.33. This
is the amount to which the victim is entitled according to this Court’s mandate on remand.
Whether the Victim is Entitled to Postjudgment Interest
{¶15} In its restitution order, the municipal court noted that the victim was entitled
to “8% annum from November 25, 2024,” presumably referring to postjudgment interest.
Green argues that postjudgment interest exceeds the scope of the mandate on remand
and that there is no basis in law to impose postjudgment interest on a criminal restitution
order. Misdemeanor restitution must be based on “the victim’s economic loss,” which
does not encompass postjudgment interest. R.C. 2929.28(A)(1). Brief of Appellant at 14.
We reject both contentions.
{¶16} Postjudgment interest is statutorily provided for as follows:
[W]hen money becomes due and payable upon any bond, bill, note, or other instrument of writing, upon any book account, upon any settlement between parties, upon all verbal contracts entered into, and upon all judgments, decrees, and orders of any judicial tribunal for the payment of money arising out of tortious conduct or a contract or other transaction, the creditor is entitled to interest at the rate per annum determined pursuant to section 5703.47 of the Revised Code, unless a written contract provides a different rate of interest in relation to the money that becomes due and payable, in which case the creditor is entitled to interest at the rate provided in that contract.
R.C. 1343.03(A).
1. At the 2024 hearing, the court determined the total reimbursement received by the victim to be $6,461.67, representing “$5,671.67 for the non-dollars reimbursed to you from your insurance company, along with the tax that you paid on that vehicle of $790.” Id. at ¶ 3. It was unclear whether this $790 was a reimbursed expense. At the 2025 hearing, the court clarified that the victim paid tax in the amount of $790.25 and made the additional finding that insurance only reimbursed him $174.44 for the tax payment. Inasmuch as the insurance company is not entitled to credit for the $790 tax paid by the victim and the finding that insurance paid $174.44 was not made at the 2024 hearing, we omit any consideration of the tax in the calculation of restitution.
PAGE 7 OF 13
Case Nos. 2025-L-108, 2025-L-109 {¶17} The municipal court’s “award” of postjudgment interest did not exceed the
scope of the mandate on remand. Rather, “Ohio case law has consistently recognized
that R.C. 1343.03(A) bestows a right to postjudgment interest ‘automatically … as a
matter of law.’” (Citation omitted.) Judy v. Ohio Bur. of Motor Vehicles, 2003-Ohio-5277,
¶ 32; State ex rel. Shimola v. Cleveland, 1994-Ohio-243, ¶ 6; Crutcher v.
Oncology/Hematology Care, Inc., 2022-Ohio-4105, ¶ 48 (1st Dist.) (“[p]ostjudgment
interest is simply operative by statute”). Accordingly, it was not necessary for this court
to sanction an award of postjudgment interest on remand or even for the victim to request
it or the court to expressly award it. “Post-judgment interest is required to be paid even if
the party entitled thereto fails to request it or the trial court’s entry awarding judgment fails
to order a losing party’s duty to pay it.” (Citation omitted.) Tabbaa v. Koglman, 2005-
Ohio-1498, ¶ 38 (8th Dist.); Buchenroth v. Adkins, 2014-Ohio-257, ¶ 10 (3d Dist.) (R.C.
1343.03(A) “automatically bestows a right to statutory interest as a matter of law on a
judgment, and does not leave any discretion to the trial court to deny such interest”).
{¶18} The question becomes, then, whether R.C. 1343.03(A) applies to an order
of restitution pursuant to R.C. 2929.28(A)(1).
{¶19} This question was indirectly addressed by the Fifth Appellate District in
State v. Kettering, 2025-Ohio-54 (5th Dist.), which concluded that postjudgment interest
does apply to a criminal restitution order. In Kettering, the appellant argued that a trial
court cannot add postjudgment interest to a restitution order if it failed to do so in its
sentencing entry. Id. at ¶ 10. The appellee (victim), “assert[ed] that the trial court had
authority to award interest under R.C. 1343.03(A) because an order of restitution, as part
PAGE 8 OF 13
Case Nos. 2025-L-108, 2025-L-109 of a misdemeanor sentence, can be a civil judgment in favor of the victim who becomes
a judgment creditor under R.C. 2929.28(E).” Id. at ¶ 11.
{¶20} The court of appeals agreed with the appellee, noting that “[a] financial
sanction of restitution … is an order in favor of the victim of the offender’s criminal act that
can be collected through a certificate of judgment …, and the offender shall be considered
for purposes of the collection as the judgment debtor.” R.C. 2929.28(E). “[A] certificate
of judgment shall be in the same manner and form as a certificate of judgment issued in
a civil action,” on which execution may be obtained “through any available procedure.”
R.C. 2929.28(E)(1) and (2). The court found that “[t]hese statutory provisions clearly
provide a mechanism for a victim who is the subject of a restitution order to obtain a civil
certificate of judgment and avail him/her self to civil remedies as provided by law, without
having to file a separate civil action.” Kettering at ¶ 18.
{¶21} The court of appeals further considered R.C. 1343.03(A) as quoted above:
“when money becomes due and payable … upon all judgments, decrees, and orders of
any judicial tribunal for the payment of money arising out of tortious conduct or a contract
or other transaction, the creditor is entitled to interest at the rate per annum determined
pursuant to section 5703.47 of the Revised Code.” The court concluded: “Applying the
plain language of the statute, it appears a judgment creditor under R.C. 2929.28(E) would
be entitled to seek interest on a certificate judgment similar to all other judgments.” Id. at
¶ 21.
{¶22} Although we conclude that postjudgment interest applies to an order of
criminal restitution, we decline to follow the reasoning of Kettering. The court in Kettering
PAGE 9 OF 13
Case Nos. 2025-L-108, 2025-L-109 treated the order of restitution as a “civil judgment” once the civil certificate of judgment
issued. However, the Supreme Court of Ohio has been fairly clear that an order of
restitution is an “attendant criminal sanction” and not a civil judgment. (Citation omitted.)
State v. T.W.C., 2025-Ohio-2890, ¶ 12. We see no reason why restitution would lose its
character as a criminal sanction merely because it may be executed upon in the manner
of a civil judgment. Moreover, the court in Kettering did not consider that postjudgment
interest would apply when the sentencing entry is issued, not when the certificate of
judgment is obtained.
{¶23} Green argues that Kettering failed to address the more fundamental issue
of whether R.C. 1343.03(A) applies to criminal restitution. The statute applies to the
“orders of any judicial tribunal for the payment of money arising out of tortious conduct or
a contract or other transaction.” Green maintains that this language should be interpreted
to limit the applicability of postjudgment interest to civil actions: “Generally, a catch-all
term like ‘any other transaction’ encompasses ‘only things of a similar character as those
comprehended by the preceding terms.” Brief of Appellant at 17-18, quoting Fraley v.
Estate of Oeding, 2014-Ohio-452, ¶ 23; Stiner v. Amazon.com, Inc., 2020-Ohio-4632, ¶
15. Since “torts and contracts are the types of civil action, … ‘any other transaction’
should be read to only include other types of civil actions and not encompass criminal
cases.” Brief of Appellant at 18. We disagree.
{¶24} The Supreme Court of Ohio considered the phrase “any other transaction”
in State ex rel. Bowman v. Columbiana Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 1997-Ohio-265. The court
acknowledged that “[t]he phrase ‘other transaction’ is not defined by statute,” and,
PAGE 10 OF 13
Case Nos. 2025-L-108, 2025-L-109 therefore, like other undefined words used in a statute, “must be accorded their usual,
normal, or customary meaning.” Id. at ¶ 10. The court adopted the Black’s Law Dictionary
definition of “transaction”: “[a]n act, agreement, or several acts or agreements between
or among parties whereby a cause of action or alteration of legal rights occur[s].” (Citation
omitted.) Id.
{¶25} Bowman was a statutory claim against a governmental agency to recover
fees and expenses following the abandonment of appropriation proceedings. Id. at ¶ 1.
The supreme court applied the definition of “transaction” to the facts before it thus:
In this case, several acts have occurred between the parties. Respondents initiated appropriation proceedings against relators and subsequently abandoned the proceedings. These acts created a cause of action under R.C. 163.21(A)(2) for relators to request fees and expenses they incurred in the appropriation proceedings. Therefore, the December 1994 judgment for $43,235.26 in fees and expenses constituted a judgment for money arising out of an “other transaction.”
Id. at ¶ 11.
{¶26} Nothing in the Black’s Law Dictionary definition of “transaction” or the
supreme court’s application of the term in Bowman supports Green’s claim that R.C.
1343.03(A) is limited to types of civil actions properly speaking. Compare Pittsburgh, C.
& T. R. Co. v. Tod, 72 Ohio St. 156, 166 (1905) (“[a] appropriation proceeding is not a
civil action, but a special proceeding”). Green’s act of destroying the victim’s vehicle in
the present case was just as much a transaction resulting in a cause of action as was the
county commissioner’s act of initiating appropriation proceedings in Bowman. We find no
justification for departing from the usual, normal, or customary meaning of “transaction”
in the context of a criminal prosecution.
PAGE 11 OF 13
Case Nos. 2025-L-108, 2025-L-109 {¶27} Moreover, the language of the interest on judgments statute applies
specifically to “orders … for the payment of money arising out of tortious conduct,” which
encompasses Green’s conduct. Green argues that, while “[c]riminal conduct will often
also constitute conduct that is ‘tortious[,]’ … a criminal action is not an action in tort.” Brief
of Appellant at 17. This is true. The statute, however, speaks of a judgment arising out
of “tortious conduct,” not simply “an action in tort.” Accordingly, we find that the municipal
court’s order of restitution was subject to R.C. 1343.03(A).
{¶28} The sole assignment of error is without merit.
{¶29} For the foregoing reasons, the restitution order is reversed with respect to
the amount of restitution and affirmed with respect to postjudgment interest. This matter
is remanded for the municipal court to enter an amount of restitution consistent with this
Opinion. Costs to be taxed between the parties equally.
MATT LYNCH, P.J.,
JOHN J. EKLUND, J.,
concur.
PAGE 12 OF 13
Case Nos. 2025-L-108, 2025-L-109 JUDGMENT ENTRY
For the reasons stated in the Opinion of this court, the assignment of error is with
merit to the extent indicated in the Opinion. The order of this court is that the judgment
of the Painesville Municipal Court is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for
further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.
Costs to be taxed between the parties equally.
JUDGE SCOTT LYNCH
PRESIDING JUDGE MATT LYNCH, concurs
JUDGE JOHN J. EKLUND, concurs
THIS DOCUMENT CONSTITUTES A FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY
A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure.
PAGE 13 OF 13
Case Nos. 2025-L-108, 2025-L-109