State v. Grooms

Citations

• 2024 Ohio 6021

Syllabus

Restitution; manifest weight; sentencing; R.C. 2929.11; R.C. 2929.12. Judgment affirmed. A review of the trial court's journal clearly indicates that either restitution was to be paid, or the trial would proceed. Since trial proceeded, the trial court's journal entry is moot and the restitution order is no longer in effect. Moreover, the trial court's sentencing entry is silent as to restitution. Consequently, there is no existing restitution order and the defendant's argument that that the trial court plainly erred in ordering restitution prior to his trial or conviction is meritless. Nor is this the exceptional case contemplated by the Ohio Supreme Court where the evidence weighs heavily against conviction. The jury did not clearly lose its way in resolving conflicts in the evidence and create such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered. Finally, we cannot say that the defendant's sentence is contrary to law; based on our review of the record before us, the trial court considered the purposes of sentencing and sentencing factors prescribed by R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.