[Cite as State v. Winkle, 2026-Ohio-1365.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-250381 TRIAL NO. 24/TRC/29913/A Plaintiff-Appellee, :
and : JUDGMENT ENTRY VICTIM M.L., :
Appellant, :
vs. :
ADAM WINKLE, :
Defendant-Appellee.
This cause was heard upon the appeal, the record, the briefs, and arguments. For the reasons set forth in the Opinion filed this date, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded. Further, the court holds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal, allows no penalty, and orders that costs be taxed to Appellee Winkle. The court further orders that (1) a copy of this Judgment with a copy of the Opinion attached constitutes the mandate, and (2) the mandate be sent to the trial court for execution under App.R. 27.
To the clerk: Enter upon the journal of the court on 4/15/2026 per order of the court.
By:_______________________ Administrative Judge [Cite as State v. Winkle, 2026-Ohio-1365.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-250381 TRIAL NO. 24/TRC/29913/A Plaintiff-Appellee, :
and : OPINION VICTIM M.L., :
Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Municipal Court
Judgment Appealed From Is: Reversed and Cause Remanded
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: April 15, 2026
Emily Smart Woerner, City Solicitor, William T. Horsley, Chief Prosecuting Attorney, and Joseph M. Cossins, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,
Ohio Crime Victim Justice Center and Morgan Galle, for Victim-Appellant,
Alana Van Gundy, for Defendant-Appellee. OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
NESTOR, Judge.
{¶1} Victim-appellant M.L. appeals the trial court’s denial of her restitution
request. Because M.L. presented competent, credible evidence from which the court
could determine restitution, we reverse the trial court’s judgment as it relates to
restitution only and remand the cause for the trial court to conduct a restitution
hearing.
I. Factual and Procedural History
{¶2} While driving under the influence of alcohol, defendant-appellee Adam
Winkle side-swiped multiple cars. Winkle pleaded guilty to operating a motor vehicle
while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, no contest to failing to reinstate his
license, and no contest to operating a vehicle without being in reasonable control.
{¶3} M.L. owns one of the cars Winkle damaged. The trial court discussed
restitution at Winkle’s sentencing hearing, but did not hold a separate restitution
hearing. At sentencing, Winkle indicated that he had agreed to pay restitution directly
to M.L.’s insurance company.
{¶4} M.L. did not appear at the sentencing hearing. She submitted her
restitution request via a victim impact statement. In the statement, M.L. requested
restitution to cover a $500 insurance deductible. The victim impact statement
includes an insurance claim and a statement from M.L. stating that she paid the
deductible.
{¶5} The State indicated that it did not believe restitution could be ordered,
because “insurance is paying that already[.]” The trial court agreed, and declined to
order restitution, citing concerns about double recovery because M.L. was already
recovering through insurance.
{¶6} M.L. appealed. Initially, the trial court did not transmit the victim
3 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
impact statement to this court. We remanded the cause so that the trial court could
supplement the record. The trial court did so on February 27, 2026. Having now
reviewed the entire record, including the victim impact statement, we proceed to the
merits.
II. Analysis
{¶7} In one assignment of error, M.L. asserts that the trial court erred by
failing to order restitution under Ohio Const., art. I, § 10a(A)(7) and R.C. 2929.28.
A. Standard of Review
{¶8} We review nonfelony restitution orders for an abuse of discretion. State
v. Dunn, 2026-Ohio-241, ¶ 10 (1st Dist.), citing State v. Haskett, 2024-Ohio-5933, ¶
13 (1st Dist.). An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court acts in an
“‘unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable’ manner.” Haskett at ¶ 13, citing
Johnson v. Abdullah, 2021-Ohio-3304, ¶ 34. Trial courts lack discretion to commit
errors of law. Id., citing Johnson at ¶ 39.
B. The State’s Role
{¶9} We pause to consider the State’s role in representing victims’ restitution
rights in the trial court, and how that role affects victims’ rights on appeal.
{¶10} “To preserve the issue for appeal, either the State or the victim must
request restitution before the trial court.” State v. Godfrey, 2025-Ohio-1575, ¶ 131 (1st
Dist.). In this case, the prosecutor did not specifically object to the trial court’s failure
to award M.L. restitution, as the prosecutor believed that the trial court could not
order restitution because M.L. was recovering through insurance.
{¶11} However, as explained below, even if a victim is recovering through
insurance, that recovery does not prohibit a victim from recovering the loss of an
insurance deductible the victim has paid. Nevertheless, whether the State’s
4 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
misrepresentation here constituted a misunderstanding of the facts or a
misunderstanding of the law does not affect M.L.’s ability to contest the trial court’s
failure to award her restitution on appeal because “[v]ictims have a right to appeal the
issue of restitution.” Godfrey at ¶ 131, citing Ohio Const., art. I, § 10a(B).
{¶12} This court considered a similar situation in State v. Morales, 2023-
Ohio-2459, ¶ 14-15 (1st Dist.). In Morales, the defendant crashed his car into a car
driven by the victim. Id. at ¶ 1. The victim did not seek restitution via representation
by the prosecutor. Id. at ¶ 14. Instead, the victim sought restitution by making a
request in a victim impact statement. Id. at ¶ 15. The victim did not appear in court.
Id. at ¶ 14. The trial court awarded restitution based on the victim impact statement.
Id. at ¶ 4.
{¶13} On appeal to this court, the defendant argued that “despite the
sentencing report indicating that [the victim] requested restitution, the request was
insufficient as it contained only boilerplate language, and [the victim] never appeared
in court and failed to immediately submit verifying receipts.” Id. at ¶ 14.
{¶14} This court held that because the victim “provided the court with
appropriate documents that contained information about the restitution . . . sought”
and “requested restitution in [the] victim impact statement” the “request for
restitution satisfied any necessary requirements.” Id. at ¶ 15.
{¶15} The Morales case supports our conclusion today that even though the
prosecutor did not directly object to the court’s failure to award M.L. restitution, that
failure to object does not limit M.L.’s appellate rights.
C. Restitution
{¶16} R.C. 2929.28(A)(1) permits a trial court to order the defendant to pay
restitution “to the victim . . . in an amount based on the victim’s economic loss.”
5 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
Haskett, 2024-Ohio-5933, ¶ 14 (1st Dist.), quoting R.C. 2929.28. R.C. 2929.01(L)
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Winkle, 2026-Ohio-1365.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-250381 TRIAL NO. 24/TRC/29913/A Plaintiff-Appellee, :
and : JUDGMENT ENTRY VICTIM M.L., :
Appellant, :
vs. :
ADAM WINKLE, :
Defendant-Appellee.
This cause was heard upon the appeal, the record, the briefs, and arguments. For the reasons set forth in the Opinion filed this date, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded. Further, the court holds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal, allows no penalty, and orders that costs be taxed to Appellee Winkle. The court further orders that (1) a copy of this Judgment with a copy of the Opinion attached constitutes the mandate, and (2) the mandate be sent to the trial court for execution under App.R. 27.
To the clerk: Enter upon the journal of the court on 4/15/2026 per order of the court.
By:_______________________ Administrative Judge [Cite as State v. Winkle, 2026-Ohio-1365.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-250381 TRIAL NO. 24/TRC/29913/A Plaintiff-Appellee, :
and : OPINION VICTIM M.L., :
Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Municipal Court
Judgment Appealed From Is: Reversed and Cause Remanded
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: April 15, 2026
Emily Smart Woerner, City Solicitor, William T. Horsley, Chief Prosecuting Attorney, and Joseph M. Cossins, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,
Ohio Crime Victim Justice Center and Morgan Galle, for Victim-Appellant,
Alana Van Gundy, for Defendant-Appellee. OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
NESTOR, Judge.
{¶1} Victim-appellant M.L. appeals the trial court’s denial of her restitution
request. Because M.L. presented competent, credible evidence from which the court
could determine restitution, we reverse the trial court’s judgment as it relates to
restitution only and remand the cause for the trial court to conduct a restitution
hearing.
I. Factual and Procedural History
{¶2} While driving under the influence of alcohol, defendant-appellee Adam
Winkle side-swiped multiple cars. Winkle pleaded guilty to operating a motor vehicle
while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, no contest to failing to reinstate his
license, and no contest to operating a vehicle without being in reasonable control.
{¶3} M.L. owns one of the cars Winkle damaged. The trial court discussed
restitution at Winkle’s sentencing hearing, but did not hold a separate restitution
hearing. At sentencing, Winkle indicated that he had agreed to pay restitution directly
to M.L.’s insurance company.
{¶4} M.L. did not appear at the sentencing hearing. She submitted her
restitution request via a victim impact statement. In the statement, M.L. requested
restitution to cover a $500 insurance deductible. The victim impact statement
includes an insurance claim and a statement from M.L. stating that she paid the
deductible.
{¶5} The State indicated that it did not believe restitution could be ordered,
because “insurance is paying that already[.]” The trial court agreed, and declined to
order restitution, citing concerns about double recovery because M.L. was already
recovering through insurance.
{¶6} M.L. appealed. Initially, the trial court did not transmit the victim
3 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
impact statement to this court. We remanded the cause so that the trial court could
supplement the record. The trial court did so on February 27, 2026. Having now
reviewed the entire record, including the victim impact statement, we proceed to the
merits.
II. Analysis
{¶7} In one assignment of error, M.L. asserts that the trial court erred by
failing to order restitution under Ohio Const., art. I, § 10a(A)(7) and R.C. 2929.28.
A. Standard of Review
{¶8} We review nonfelony restitution orders for an abuse of discretion. State
v. Dunn, 2026-Ohio-241, ¶ 10 (1st Dist.), citing State v. Haskett, 2024-Ohio-5933, ¶
13 (1st Dist.). An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court acts in an
“‘unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable’ manner.” Haskett at ¶ 13, citing
Johnson v. Abdullah, 2021-Ohio-3304, ¶ 34. Trial courts lack discretion to commit
errors of law. Id., citing Johnson at ¶ 39.
B. The State’s Role
{¶9} We pause to consider the State’s role in representing victims’ restitution
rights in the trial court, and how that role affects victims’ rights on appeal.
{¶10} “To preserve the issue for appeal, either the State or the victim must
request restitution before the trial court.” State v. Godfrey, 2025-Ohio-1575, ¶ 131 (1st
Dist.). In this case, the prosecutor did not specifically object to the trial court’s failure
to award M.L. restitution, as the prosecutor believed that the trial court could not
order restitution because M.L. was recovering through insurance.
{¶11} However, as explained below, even if a victim is recovering through
insurance, that recovery does not prohibit a victim from recovering the loss of an
insurance deductible the victim has paid. Nevertheless, whether the State’s
4 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
misrepresentation here constituted a misunderstanding of the facts or a
misunderstanding of the law does not affect M.L.’s ability to contest the trial court’s
failure to award her restitution on appeal because “[v]ictims have a right to appeal the
issue of restitution.” Godfrey at ¶ 131, citing Ohio Const., art. I, § 10a(B).
{¶12} This court considered a similar situation in State v. Morales, 2023-
Ohio-2459, ¶ 14-15 (1st Dist.). In Morales, the defendant crashed his car into a car
driven by the victim. Id. at ¶ 1. The victim did not seek restitution via representation
by the prosecutor. Id. at ¶ 14. Instead, the victim sought restitution by making a
request in a victim impact statement. Id. at ¶ 15. The victim did not appear in court.
Id. at ¶ 14. The trial court awarded restitution based on the victim impact statement.
Id. at ¶ 4.
{¶13} On appeal to this court, the defendant argued that “despite the
sentencing report indicating that [the victim] requested restitution, the request was
insufficient as it contained only boilerplate language, and [the victim] never appeared
in court and failed to immediately submit verifying receipts.” Id. at ¶ 14.
{¶14} This court held that because the victim “provided the court with
appropriate documents that contained information about the restitution . . . sought”
and “requested restitution in [the] victim impact statement” the “request for
restitution satisfied any necessary requirements.” Id. at ¶ 15.
{¶15} The Morales case supports our conclusion today that even though the
prosecutor did not directly object to the court’s failure to award M.L. restitution, that
failure to object does not limit M.L.’s appellate rights.
C. Restitution
{¶16} R.C. 2929.28(A)(1) permits a trial court to order the defendant to pay
restitution “to the victim . . . in an amount based on the victim’s economic loss.”
5 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
Haskett, 2024-Ohio-5933, ¶ 14 (1st Dist.), quoting R.C. 2929.28. R.C. 2929.01(L)
defines “economic loss” as “any economic detriment suffered by a victim as a direct
and proximate result of the commission of an offense.” “Restitution is limited to the
‘actual loss caused by the defendant’s criminal conduct.’” Haskett at ¶ 14, quoting
State v. Martin, 140 Ohio App. 3d 326, 337 (4th Dist. 2000).
{¶17} If a victim has insurance that covers damage caused by the defendant,
then restitution should be set at the amount of the deductible, rather than the amount
of the damage. Id. at ¶ 17.
{¶18} Here, M.L. submitted documentation suggesting that she incurred a
$500 insurance deductible as a result of Winkle’s conduct. Even though Winkle
indicated that he paid M.L.’s insurance company directly, the evidence suggests that
M.L. still suffered economic loss by paying her deductible. If, after conducting a
restitution hearing, the trial court determines that that is indeed the case, M.L. would
be entitled to restitution in the amount of her deductible. A victim who has paid a
deductible should be compensated for the amount paid.
{¶19} At oral argument, Winkle conceded that if the victim impact statement
contained evidence suggesting a deductible payment, the proper remedy would be to
remand for a restitution hearing. Having found such evidence, we sustain M.L.’s
assignment of error and remand the cause to the trial court.
III. Conclusion
{¶20} M.L.’s assignment of error is sustained. The judgment is reversed as it
relates to the trial court’s restitution determination. We remand the cause to the trial
court for the limited purpose of holding a restitution hearing to determine the amount
of restitution to which M.L. is entitled.
Judgment accordingly.
6 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
KINSLEY, P.J., and MOORE, J., concur.