State v. Veal

2026 Ohio 488

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: February 13, 2026
• Docket: 30373
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Veal, 2026-Ohio-488.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO : : C.A. No. 30373 Appellee : : Trial Court Case No. 24 TRD 4024 v. : : (Criminal Appeal from Municipal Court) DENNIS VEAL : : FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY & Appellant : OPINION :

...........

Pursuant to the opinion of this court rendered on February 13, 2026, the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Costs to be paid as follows: 50% by appellee and 50% by appellant.

Pursuant to Ohio App.R. 30(A), the clerk of the court of appeals shall immediately

serve notice of this judgment upon all parties and make a note in the docket of the service.

Additionally, pursuant to App.R. 27, the clerk of the court of appeals shall send a certified

copy of this judgment, which constitutes a mandate, to the clerk of the trial court and note

the service on the appellate docket.

For the court,

RONALD C. LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE

TUCKER, J., and HANSEMAN, J., concur. OPINION MONTGOMERY C.A. No. 30373

ARVIN S. MILLER, Attorney for Appellant STEPHANIE L. COOK, Attorney for Appellee

LEWIS, J.

{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant Dennis Veal appeals from his convictions in the Dayton

Municipal Court for operating a motor vehicle without a valid license (“driving without a

license”), a first-degree misdemeanor, and a red-light violation, a minor misdemeanor. For

the following reasons, we reverse the judgment of the trial court in part and affirm it in part.

I. Facts and Procedural History

{¶ 2} The events giving rise to this matter occurred on July 8, 2024, when Veal ran a

red light at the intersection of Philadelphia Drive and Salem Avenue, colliding with and

totaling a vehicle driven by Kalijah Johnson. Veal was cited for driving without a license,

driving under suspension, failure to wear a seat belt, and a red-light violation. He pleaded

not guilty on July 18, 2024, and provided proof of insurance.

{¶ 3} On August 20, 2024, Veal pleaded guilty to driving without a license and no

contest to the red-light violation. The two remaining charges were withdrawn. The court

found Veal guilty and ordered a pre-sentence investigation.

{¶ 4} A restitution hearing was held on December 10, 2024, at which time the State

requested reimbursement for rental car expenses incurred by Johnson’s mother for a car

she rented for Johnson after the accident. Johnson and his mother testified at the

restitution hearing.

{¶ 5} Renata Lewis testified that she is Johnson’s mother and that he turned 18 in

November 2023. He had obtained the vehicle driven at the time of the accident by means

2 of a “deferred payment” plan with Byrider Dealership, under which Johnson was required to

make four bi-weekly payments to establish credit with the dealership. By the time of the

accident, he had made three payments of $375. Lewis did not co-sign for the vehicle, and

she was not present at the accident. Because the fourth payment had not been made,

Johnson did not obtain ownership of the car, and he lost a total of $1,125 in payments after

it was totaled.

{¶ 6} Lewis was employed at a group home where she was on call twenty-four hours

a day, seven days a week. She had her own vehicle. Johnson was also employed, his

brother and sister attended school, and his sister also had a job. Lewis relied on Johnson

to transport his siblings. Lewis stated that she and Johnson did not receive any payments

from their insurance company after the accident, but they learned that the dealership had

been paid. She testified that she had retained the services of a personal injury attorney.

{¶ 7} Lewis’s sister was employed at Enterprise, and Lewis was able to obtain a rental

car there for Johnson at a “friends and family” discount. Lewis identified three rental

agreements with Enterprise, which resulted in rental car charges totaling $1,598.75.

{¶ 8} Johnson testified that he ran a “cleaning service” and was able to obtain his

vehicle based on his income from the business. Lewis rented the car from Enterprise

because the cost for Johnson to rent the car in his own name would have been more

expensive, and Lewis was able to get the “friends and family discount” from her sister.

Johnson intended to repay Lewis for the rental car. Without the rental car, Johnson would

have been unable to work.

{¶ 9} The court set the matter for disposition and granted defense counsel the

opportunity to review the rental car agreements and present “any additional defenses or any

exhibits that he deem[ed] necessary” regarding restitution at the final disposition.

3 {¶ 10} On January 15, 2025, a sentencing hearing was held. At the hearing, the trial

court indicated that it lacked authority to order restitution in favor of Lewis because she was

not a party to the action, and she rented the vehicle as a matter of “personal choice.” As to

Johnson, however, the court stated, “[H]e had built equity up in [the totaled] vehicle and it is

unfair for him to lose the value of money he’s paid towards that vehicle through the accident

that Mr. Veal caused while he’s unlicensed and driving the motor vehicle and crashing as a

result of a red-light violation.” Tr. 62.

{¶ 11} Defense counsel objected and argued, “[W]hat the court has actually done is

turn the red-light violation that we [pleaded] no contest to [into] an adjudication of

responsibility for that and has deprived Mr. Veal of his rights that he would have to due

process in a civil setting.” Tr. 64. Counsel noted that Veal provided proof of insurance,

asserted that the court lacked authority to order restitution, and stated that Lewis

acknowledged at the restitution hearing that she and Johnson had retained an attorney and

were pursuing a civil action for damages. Counsel disputed that Johnson had any equity

in the vehicle at the time of the loss because he had not made the fourth payment in

accordance with the deferred payment plan. Counsel further argued, “[T]he matter was

settled by insurance. The payment made for the vehicle was done and that was accepted

by him and what the court is doing without any underlying facts is assessing a restitution

amount over and above his requirements or his coverage, which he didn’t even reach the

limits of his coverage on the insurance.” Tr. 65. Counsel argued that Veal’s lack of a valid

driver’s license did not cause the accident, and to overlook that was a “great error.”

{¶ 12} The following exchange then occurred:

THE COURT: I understand. Your objection is noted. Pursuant to

2929.2(A)1 [sic] the court does have the power to order restitution. I

4 understand that there’s a disagreement as to whether it’s ordered under the

traffic light violation or the no operator’s license violation. However, the court

has taken those in conjunction in finding that Mr. Veal operated a motor

vehicle, contrary to law, when he was driving without a license. As a direct

and proximate result of him operating a vehicle without a license he caused a

motor vehicle collision that resulted in economic loss for Mr. Johnson with

[$1,125]. It’s not required that a victim establish ownership of something

before they can be entitled to economic compensation and just that they

experience some sort of loss for those reasons. The court has ordered this

restitution amount. Your objection is noted. Anything further?

THE DEFENSE: Restitution is ordered as a result of the no driver’s license

because that’s the only jailable offense in this.

THE COURT: I understand. I can take the two offenses in conjunction and

consider it with the scope and course of the case. I mean I’m not restricting

to just one charge. I can order restitution and I ordered restitution.

Tr. 65-66.

{¶ 13} On the driving without a license conviction, the trial court sentenced Veal to

180 days in jail, suspended all 180 days, and placed him on two years of basic probation.

Veal was ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $1,125. The court imposed a $50 fine,

5 also suspended, plus court costs. The court did not impose a sentence for the red-light

violation.1

{¶ 14} Veal filed a timely notice of appeal from the trial court’s judgment.

II. The Record Does Not Establish that the Alleged Economic Loss Was

Proximately Caused by Veal’s Driving Without A License

{¶ 15} Veal’s first assignment of error states:

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ORDERING THE DEFENDANT TO

PAY RESTITUTION TO THE DRIVER OF A CAR WHO WAS INVOLVED IN

A CAR ACCIDENT WITH THE DEFENDANT, ALLEGEDLY DUE TO THE

DEFENDANT’S VIOLATION OF A MINOR MISDEMEANOR TRAFFIC

VIOLATION, SIMPLY BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED WITH

DRIVING WITHOUT A VALID LICENSE.

{¶ 16} Veal asserts that the red-light violation was the direct and proximate cause of

the damage suffered by Johnson, and restitution is not allowed to be ordered in minor

misdemeanor cases. This is so, according to Veal, because the red-light violation may be

resolved by the traffic violations bureau. Veal argues that Johnson may seek

reimbursement for damages from the accident through a civil action. Further, he claims

that his lack of a driver’s license did not cause Johnson’s damages and that Johnson is not

a “victim” under Marsy’s Law.

1. Although not at issue in this appeal, we note that the trial court’s original judgment entry reflected that Veal pleaded guilty to driving without a license but erroneously cited R.C. 4510.11(A), which prohibits driving under suspension. The entry also erroneously indicated that Veal pleaded guilty to the red-light violation, and it did not note the withdrawal of the other charges. The entry was modified on January 23, 2025, again stating that Veal pleaded guilty to both charges, but incorrectly citing R.C. 4510.11(A). The modified entry then reflected that the driving under suspension and seatbelt violations were withdrawn. R.C. 4510.12 (driving without a license) was not cited in the final entry.

6 {¶ 17} The State responds that Veal’s initial assigned error is waived and also without

merit. The State directs our attention to Columbus v. Repine, 2007-Ohio-5015 (10th Dist.).

It is significant, the State asserts, that Veal was convicted of driving without a license and

not driving with a suspended license.

{¶ 18} In reply, Veal argues that unlike the appellant in Repine, he previously had a

valid driver’s license. He asserts that the logic in Repine is “faulty” because many “licensed

drivers still have accidents even though they have met the requirements of having a license.”

{¶ 19} “[W]e generally review a trial court’s order of restitution under an abuse of

discretion standard; an abuse of discretion implies that the court’s attitude is unreasonable,

arbitrary, or unconscionable.” State v. Wilson, 2015-Ohio-3167, ¶ 11 (2d Dist.), citing State

v. Johnson, 2012-Ohio-1230, ¶ 11 (2d Dist.), and State v. Naylor, 2011-Ohio-960, ¶ 22

(2d Dist.). “‘A trial court abuses its discretion when it orders restitution that does not bear

a reasonable relationship to the actual financial loss suffered.’” State v. Williams, 2017-

Ohio-125, ¶ 14 (2d Dist.), quoting Wilson at ¶ 11. “In addition, a trial court abuses its

discretion if the award of restitution is not supported by competent, credible evidence in the

record from which the court can discern the amount of restitution to a reasonable degree of

certainty.” Id., citing State v. Olson, 2013-Ohio-4403, ¶ 33 (2d Dist.). “‘The State bears

the burden of establishing the restitution amount.’” State v. Moore, 2023-Ohio-3318, ¶ 11

(1st Dist.), quoting State v. Caldwell, 2023-Ohio-355, ¶ 16 (4th Dist.).

{¶ 20} Before addressing the merits of Veal’s arguments, we must address the

State’s waiver argument. According to the State, Veal’s counsel waited until after the

imposition of the sentence to argue that “the court incorrectly boot-strapped the right to

restitution by tying it to the defendant’s misdemeanor charge of driving with an invalid driver’s

license.” Appellee’s Brief, p. 8, citing Tr. 65. We disagree.

7 {¶ 21} A review of the transcript reveals that Veal’s counsel raised the argument in a

timely fashion. The sentencing hearing began with the State requesting restitution only for

Lewis for the rental charges incurred after the collision. The pre-sentence investigation

report also recommended restitution for the rental car charge. Defense counsel stated the

reasons why the trial court should not order restitution for Lewis. The trial court ultimately

decided not to award restitution to Lewis but then said that it was going to award restitution

to Johnson for the three payments he had made to the car dealership before the collision

occurred. While the trial court was explaining its reasoning for awarding this restitution,

defense counsel stated, “At the appropriate time I’m going to voice my objections.” Tr. 63.

The trial court acknowledged this statement and subsequently allowed defense counsel to

place the objection on the record. After defense counsel explained the reasoning behind

the objection, the trial court awarded restitution to Johnson. Based on this record, we

conclude that Veal did not waive the arguments he now raises in his first assignment of

error. Therefore, we may consider whether the trial court abused its discretion by imposing

restitution.

{¶ 22} “Marsy’s Law is an amendment to Article I, Section 10a of the Ohio

Constitution that expanded the rights afforded to victims of crimes.” State v. Trent, 2025-

Ohio-1278, ¶ 12 (2d Dist.). “Marsy’s Law provides a right to ‘full and timely restitution’ but

did not alter the meaning of ‘restitution’ in Ohio law. Restitution in Ohio is limited to

economic losses suffered by the victim as a direct and proximate result of the commission

of the offense.” State v Yerkey, 2022-Ohio-4298, ¶ 1. See also R.C. 2929.28(A)(1) (“The

amount the court orders as restitution shall not exceed the amount of the economic loss

suffered by the victim as a direct and proximate result of the commission of the offense.”).

Marsy’s Law defines a “victim” as “a person against whom the criminal offense or delinquent

8 act is committed or who is directly and proximately harmed by the commission of the offense

or act.” Ohio Const., art. I, § 10a(D). Economic loss is “any economic detriment suffered

by a victim as a direct and proximate result of the commission of an offense,” including “any

property loss . . . incurred as a result of the commission of the offense.” R.C. 2929.01(L).

{¶ 23} “Generally speaking, a consequence is a direct and proximate result of an act

when the consequence is foreseeable and is produced by the natural and continuous

sequence of events following the act.” Yerkey at ¶ 16, citing Strother v. Hutchinson,

67 Ohio St.2d 282, 286-287 (1981). Further, “[c]onduct is the direct cause of a result if ‘the

result would not have occurred “but for” the conduct.’” State v. Borger, 2023-Ohio-1124,

¶ 19 (1st Dist.), quoting State v. Lovelace, 137 Ohio App.3d 206, 216 (1st Dist. 1999).

{¶ 24} R.C. 2929.28 governs the financial sanctions that may be imposed in

misdemeanor cases. A trial court “may not impose restitution as a sanction pursuant to this

division if the offense could be disposed of by the traffic violations bureau serving the court

under Traffic Rule 13.” R.C. 2929.28(A)(1). This traffic rule provides that “[d]riving without

being licensed to drive when jail is a possible penalty” cannot be processed by a traffic

violations bureau, whereas a red-light violation may be. Traf.R. 13(B)(5). Therefore, if the

only direct and proximate cause of Johnson’s alleged economic loss was Veal’s red-light

violation, the trial court could not have imposed restitution. See State v. Miller, 2012-Ohio-

211, ¶ 15 (2d Dist.) (“But since Miller was charged with a minor misdemeanor, the court

could not have ordered her to pay restitution.”).

{¶ 25} It appears undisputed that the only proximate cause of the traffic collision at

issue in this appeal was Veal’s running of a red light at the intersection of Philadelphia Drive

and Salem Avenue. As noted above, a trial court cannot impose restitution based on a red-

light violation. Nonetheless, the State relies on the proximate cause analysis in Repine to

9 support the trial court’s restitution order. There, the defendant was in a car accident, and

he pleaded no contest to failure to maintain an assured clear distance, a minor

misdemeanor, and driving without a license. Repine, 2007-Ohio-5015, at ¶ 2 (10th Dist.).

The trial court ordered the defendant to pay restitution. Id. “The trial court determined that

the collision was a direct and proximate result of the failure of appellant to adequately

prepare himself to be a licensed driver and to demonstrate his preparation to the appropriate

testing authorities.” Id. at ¶ 9. The Tenth District noted that “the trial court could not order

restitution for the offense which was the most direct cause of the economic harm,” namely

failure to maintain an assured clear distance. Id. at ¶ 6. But the Tenth District held that

the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding restitution because the defendant’s

failure to obtain a driver’s license “could well have been a cause of the collision.” Id. at

¶ 13. The court reasoned that “[p]roper training would have helped him understand speed

requirements, stopping distances and defensive driving, any one of which would have

prevented this collision.” Id.

{¶ 26} Here, unlike in Repine, the record established that Veal had previously

obtained a driver’s license. Veal stated that due to his involvement in another accident, he

had lost his license the year prior to the traffic collision with Johnson. Tr. 60-61. Although

the trial court stated that it considered Veal’s red-light and driving without a license offenses

“in conjunction,” it further stated that “as a direct and proximate result of him operating a

vehicle without a license he caused a motor vehicle collision that resulted in economic loss

for Mr. Johnson . . . .” Tr. 65.

{¶ 27} The trial court unreasonably concluded that Veal’s driving without a license

was a direct and proximate cause of the motor vehicle collision and Johnson’s alleged

economic loss. The collision and alleged economic loss were not consequences of the

10 natural and continuous sequence of events following Veal’s act of driving without a license.

Further, it is not reasonably foreseeable that a traffic collision will occur simply because a

person drives without a license. The same cannot be said for a red-light violation. When

a person runs a red light, it is reasonably foreseeable that a collision will occur. And it is

undisputed that Veal’s red-light violation directly caused the collision.

{¶ 28} There is no evidence in the record that Veal’s act of driving without a license

was a proximate cause of the collision or any alleged economic loss. Without a direct and

proximate causal relationship between Veal’s driving without a license and Johnson’s

economic loss, we must conclude the trial court abused its discretion in imposing restitution.

{¶ 29} Veal’s first assignment of error is sustained.

III. The Second Assignment of Error Is Overruled As Moot

{¶ 30} Veal’s second assignment of error states:

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FINDING THAT PRIOR PAYMENTS

TOWARDS THE PURCHASE OF A CAR ARE RECOVERABLE AS

RESTITUTION PURSUANT TO R.C. 2929.28(A)(1).

{¶ 31} Veal argues that the trial court erred in finding that payments he made toward

the purchase of the car involved in the accident were recoverable in restitution because the

payments do not constitute economic loss. Based on our disposition of the first assignment

of error, we need not resolve Veal’s second assignment of error. Therefore, the second

assignment of error is overruled as moot. App.R. 12(A)(1)(c).

IV. Conclusion

{¶ 32} Having sustained Veal’s first assignment of error, we reverse the judgment of

the trial court to the extent that it imposed restitution. The judgment is affirmed in all other

11 respects.

.............

TUCKER, J., and HANSEMAN, J., concur.