[Cite as Zanesville v. Quinn, 2018-Ohio-429.]
COURT OF APPEALS MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
CITY OF ZANESVILLE : JUDGES: : Hon. John W. Wise, P.J. Plaintiff - Appellee : Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. -vs- : : RYAN QUINN : Case No. CT2017-0033 : Defendant - Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Zanesville Municipal Court, Case No. 17 CRB 00267
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT: January 31, 2018
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
DAVID J. TARBERT ERIC J. ALLEN EMILY STRANG TARBERT The Law Office of Eric J. Allen, Ltd. SCOTT D. EICKELBERGER 4605 Morse Rd., Suite 201 City of Zanesville Gahanna, Ohio 43230 Law Director’s Office 401 Market Street, Suite 209 Zanesville, Ohio 43701 Muskingum County, Case No. CT2017-0033 2
Baldwin, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Ryan Quinn appeals from May 16, 2017 Entry of the
Zanesville Municipal Court. Plaintiff-appellee is the City of Zanesville.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} On January 2, 2017, the Zanesville Police Department responded to a call
that appellant had vandalized a vehicle owned by Adriane Johnson and had assaulted
Allen Henderson. The vehicle was a 2003 Chevy Trailblazer with approximately 220,200
miles. Appellant was charged with criminal damaging, a misdemeanor of the second
degree, and assault, a misdemeanor of the first degree. At his arraignment, appellant
entered plea of not guilty to the charges.
{¶3} Appellant, on April 11, 2017, entered a plea of no contest to the charge of
criminal damaging and was found guilty by the trial court. At appellee’s request, the
remaining charge was dismissed. At the April 11, 2017 hearing, appellant admitted to
keying Johnson’s vehicle, but claimed that he did not cause any other damage to the
same. The trial court deferred sentencing until it could obtain more information about the
damage for purposes of restitution.
{¶4} At the May 6, 2017 hearing, the Assistant City Law Director for the City of
Zanesville stated that the amount of restitution requested was $1,761.00, which was the
Kelley Blue Book value of Johnson’s vehicle. Johnson testified that appellant had busted
out her taillight and caused deep scratches to her vehicle. She testified that the front of
the car had “some imperfections and scratches”. Transcript from May 6, 2017 hearing at
7. When asked by the trial court, Johnson testified that prior to the evening in question,
her vehicle did not have any damage. Johnson further testified that the next day, she Muskingum County, Case No. CT2017-0033 3
took her vehicle to Maysville Muffler and that the estimate to have the Trailblazer repaired
was approximately $3,370.55. Because the value of her vehicle was less that it cost to
repair it, Johnson obtained a Kelley Blue Book value for her vehicle that indicated that the
value was $1,761.00. At the request of the Assistant City Law Director, Johnson took her
vehicle into Southside Collision for a second repair estimate. She testified that the second
estimate was for $5,877.28. Photographs of the damage were introduced as exhibits as
were the two estimates and the Kelley Blue Book value.
{¶5} At the hearing, appellant admitted to keying Johnson’s vehicle on the
passenger side, but denied that he caused any other damage and objected to paying
restitution other than for the repair to the passenger door. He testified that he did not
notice any other damage to the vehicle when he was keying the passenger side door.
The following testimony was adduced on cross-examination:
{¶6} Q: So your defense here today is that because they only confronted you
with the keying, that’s obviously all you did?
{¶7} A: That is all I did.
{¶8} Q: What did you notice was damaged on her vehicle when you were keying
the passenger’s side? What else did you notice?
{¶9} A: None.
{¶10} Q: No damage?
{¶11} A: No.
{¶12} Q: Okay. So even your own testimony indicates that there was no damage
to the vehicle prior to your keying the door?
{¶13} A: No, ma’am. Muskingum County, Case No. CT2017-0033 4
{¶14} Transcript from May 6, 2017 hearing at 26. Appellant claimed that Johnson
had gone out after he left and keyed her own vehicle.
{¶15} The trial court, at the conclusion of the hearing, indicated that it did not find
appellant’s testimony credible and awarded Johnson restitution in the amount of
$1,761.00, the Kelley Blue Book value of the vehicle. As memorialized in an Entry filed
on May 16, 2017, the trial court fined appellant $200.00 and ordered him to serve 45 days
in jail with 30 days suspended. The trial court also ordered appellant to pay restitution in
the amount of $1,761.00.
{¶16} Appellant now raises the following assignment of error on appeal:
{¶17} I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ORDERING RESTITUTION NOT
RELATED TO THE VICTIM’S ECONOMIC LOSS AND NOT SUPPORTED BY
COMPETENT AND CREDIBLE EVIDENCE AND NOT IN AN AMOUNT DETERMINED
TO A REASONABLE DEGREE OF CERTAINTY.
I
{¶18} Appellant, in his sole assignment of error, challenges the amount of
restitution ordered by the trial court.
{¶19} R.C. 2929.28 governs financial sanctions for misdemeanors. Such section
states, in relevant part, as follows:
(A) In addition to imposing court costs pursuant to section 2947.23
of the Revised Code, the court imposing a sentence upon an offender for a
misdemeanor, including a minor misdemeanor, may sentence the offender
to any financial sanction or combination of financial sanctions authorized
under this section. If the court in its discretion imposes one or more financial Muskingum County, Case No. CT2017-0033 5
sanctions, the financial sanctions that may be imposed pursuant to this
section include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) Unless the misdemeanor offense is a minor misdemeanor or
could be disposed of by the traffic violations bureau serving the court under
Traffic Rule 13, 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. The court may not impose restitution as a sanction pursuant
to this division if the offense is a minor misdemeanor or could be disposed
of by the traffic violations bureau serving the court under Traffic Rule 13. If
the court requires restitution, the court shall order that the restitution be
made to the victim in open court or to the adult probation department that
serves the jurisdiction or the clerk of the court on behalf of the victim.
If the court imposes restitution, the court shall determine the amount
of restitution to be paid by the offender. If the court imposes restitution, the
court may base the amount of restitution it orders on an amount
recommended by the victim, the offender, a presentence investigation
report, estimates or receipts indicating the cost of repairing or replacing
property, and other information, provided that 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.
If the court decides to impose restitution, the court shall hold an evidentiary
hearing on restitution if the offender, victim, or survivor disputes the amount
of restitution.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as Zanesville v. Quinn, 2018-Ohio-429.]
COURT OF APPEALS MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
CITY OF ZANESVILLE : JUDGES: : Hon. John W. Wise, P.J. Plaintiff - Appellee : Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. -vs- : : RYAN QUINN : Case No. CT2017-0033 : Defendant - Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Zanesville Municipal Court, Case No. 17 CRB 00267
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT: January 31, 2018
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
DAVID J. TARBERT ERIC J. ALLEN EMILY STRANG TARBERT The Law Office of Eric J. Allen, Ltd. SCOTT D. EICKELBERGER 4605 Morse Rd., Suite 201 City of Zanesville Gahanna, Ohio 43230 Law Director’s Office 401 Market Street, Suite 209 Zanesville, Ohio 43701 Muskingum County, Case No. CT2017-0033 2
Baldwin, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Ryan Quinn appeals from May 16, 2017 Entry of the
Zanesville Municipal Court. Plaintiff-appellee is the City of Zanesville.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} On January 2, 2017, the Zanesville Police Department responded to a call
that appellant had vandalized a vehicle owned by Adriane Johnson and had assaulted
Allen Henderson. The vehicle was a 2003 Chevy Trailblazer with approximately 220,200
miles. Appellant was charged with criminal damaging, a misdemeanor of the second
degree, and assault, a misdemeanor of the first degree. At his arraignment, appellant
entered plea of not guilty to the charges.
{¶3} Appellant, on April 11, 2017, entered a plea of no contest to the charge of
criminal damaging and was found guilty by the trial court. At appellee’s request, the
remaining charge was dismissed. At the April 11, 2017 hearing, appellant admitted to
keying Johnson’s vehicle, but claimed that he did not cause any other damage to the
same. The trial court deferred sentencing until it could obtain more information about the
damage for purposes of restitution.
{¶4} At the May 6, 2017 hearing, the Assistant City Law Director for the City of
Zanesville stated that the amount of restitution requested was $1,761.00, which was the
Kelley Blue Book value of Johnson’s vehicle. Johnson testified that appellant had busted
out her taillight and caused deep scratches to her vehicle. She testified that the front of
the car had “some imperfections and scratches”. Transcript from May 6, 2017 hearing at
7. When asked by the trial court, Johnson testified that prior to the evening in question,
her vehicle did not have any damage. Johnson further testified that the next day, she Muskingum County, Case No. CT2017-0033 3
took her vehicle to Maysville Muffler and that the estimate to have the Trailblazer repaired
was approximately $3,370.55. Because the value of her vehicle was less that it cost to
repair it, Johnson obtained a Kelley Blue Book value for her vehicle that indicated that the
value was $1,761.00. At the request of the Assistant City Law Director, Johnson took her
vehicle into Southside Collision for a second repair estimate. She testified that the second
estimate was for $5,877.28. Photographs of the damage were introduced as exhibits as
were the two estimates and the Kelley Blue Book value.
{¶5} At the hearing, appellant admitted to keying Johnson’s vehicle on the
passenger side, but denied that he caused any other damage and objected to paying
restitution other than for the repair to the passenger door. He testified that he did not
notice any other damage to the vehicle when he was keying the passenger side door.
The following testimony was adduced on cross-examination:
{¶6} Q: So your defense here today is that because they only confronted you
with the keying, that’s obviously all you did?
{¶7} A: That is all I did.
{¶8} Q: What did you notice was damaged on her vehicle when you were keying
the passenger’s side? What else did you notice?
{¶9} A: None.
{¶10} Q: No damage?
{¶11} A: No.
{¶12} Q: Okay. So even your own testimony indicates that there was no damage
to the vehicle prior to your keying the door?
{¶13} A: No, ma’am. Muskingum County, Case No. CT2017-0033 4
{¶14} Transcript from May 6, 2017 hearing at 26. Appellant claimed that Johnson
had gone out after he left and keyed her own vehicle.
{¶15} The trial court, at the conclusion of the hearing, indicated that it did not find
appellant’s testimony credible and awarded Johnson restitution in the amount of
$1,761.00, the Kelley Blue Book value of the vehicle. As memorialized in an Entry filed
on May 16, 2017, the trial court fined appellant $200.00 and ordered him to serve 45 days
in jail with 30 days suspended. The trial court also ordered appellant to pay restitution in
the amount of $1,761.00.
{¶16} Appellant now raises the following assignment of error on appeal:
{¶17} I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ORDERING RESTITUTION NOT
RELATED TO THE VICTIM’S ECONOMIC LOSS AND NOT SUPPORTED BY
COMPETENT AND CREDIBLE EVIDENCE AND NOT IN AN AMOUNT DETERMINED
TO A REASONABLE DEGREE OF CERTAINTY.
I
{¶18} Appellant, in his sole assignment of error, challenges the amount of
restitution ordered by the trial court.
{¶19} R.C. 2929.28 governs financial sanctions for misdemeanors. Such section
states, in relevant part, as follows:
(A) In addition to imposing court costs pursuant to section 2947.23
of the Revised Code, the court imposing a sentence upon an offender for a
misdemeanor, including a minor misdemeanor, may sentence the offender
to any financial sanction or combination of financial sanctions authorized
under this section. If the court in its discretion imposes one or more financial Muskingum County, Case No. CT2017-0033 5
sanctions, the financial sanctions that may be imposed pursuant to this
section include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) Unless the misdemeanor offense is a minor misdemeanor or
could be disposed of by the traffic violations bureau serving the court under
Traffic Rule 13, 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. The court may not impose restitution as a sanction pursuant
to this division if the offense is a minor misdemeanor or could be disposed
of by the traffic violations bureau serving the court under Traffic Rule 13. If
the court requires restitution, the court shall order that the restitution be
made to the victim in open court or to the adult probation department that
serves the jurisdiction or the clerk of the court on behalf of the victim.
If the court imposes restitution, the court shall determine the amount
of restitution to be paid by the offender. If the court imposes restitution, the
court may base the amount of restitution it orders on an amount
recommended by the victim, the offender, a presentence investigation
report, estimates or receipts indicating the cost of repairing or replacing
property, and other information, provided that 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.
If the court decides to impose restitution, the court shall hold an evidentiary
hearing on restitution if the offender, victim, or survivor disputes the amount
of restitution. If the court holds an evidentiary hearing, at the hearing the Muskingum County, Case No. CT2017-0033 6
victim or survivor has the burden to prove by a preponderance of the
evidence the amount of restitution sought from the offender.
{¶20} We review a trial court's restitution order for an abuse of discretion. State v.
Jones, 10th Dist. No. 14AP-80, 2014-Ohio-3740, 2014 WL 4245959, ¶ 22, citing State v.
Norman, 2013-Ohio-1908, 992 N.E.2d 432, ¶ 67. In order to find an abuse of discretion,
we must determine the trial court's decision was unreasonable, arbitrary or
unconscionable and not merely an error of law or judgment. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5
Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983). “ ‘A trial court abuses its discretion when it
orders restitution in an amount that has not been determined to bear a reasonable
relationship to the actual loss suffered as a result of the defendant's offense.’ ” Jones at
¶ 22, quoting State v. Aliane, 10th Dist. No. 03AP-840, 2004-Ohio-3730, 2004 WL
1576407, ¶ 15. See also State v. Moore–Bennett, 8th Dist. No. 95450, 2011-Ohio-1937,
2011 WL 1584497, ¶ 18.
{¶21} Contrary to appellee’s assertion, we find that appellant did object to the
restitution order. We must thus determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in
ordering appellant to pay restitution in the amount of $1,761.00 to Johnson.
{¶22} In the case sub judice, the trial court declined to award Johnson the amount
indicated in either of the two repair estimates that she obtained on the basis that the
estimates far exceeded the value of her vehicle. At the hearing, there was testimony that
the Kelley Blue Book value of the vehicle was $1,761.00. The Kelley Blue Book value,
which was admitted as an exhibit, indicated that the value of a 2003 Chevy Trailblazer
with approximately 220,000 mile was $1,761.00. We find that the trial court’s decision,
therefore, was not arbitrary, unconscionable or unreasonable. While appellant, at the Muskingum County, Case No. CT2017-0033 7
hearing, admitted only to keying Johnson’s vehicle on the passenger side, as noted by
appellee, he further agreed that, at the time he keyed her vehicle, there was no damage
to the vehicle. Moreover, the trial court clearly stated on the record that it did not find
appellant’s testimony credible and that the cost of repairing the vehicle, including painting
and clear coating, fair exceeded the value of the same.
{¶23} Based on the foregoing, appellant’s sole assignment of error is overruled.
{¶24} Accordingly, the judgment of the Zanesville Municipal Court is affirmed.
By: Baldwin, J.
John Wise, P.J. and
Hoffman, J. concur.