State v. Oliver

Citations

• 176 N.E.3d 1054
• 2021 Ohio 2543

Syllabus

The trial court did not err in ordering a significant amount of restitution where the amount of restitution was not a term of the offender's plea agreement, and the amount of restitution was fluid at the time of the plea hearing. The lack of the victims' names in each individual count of the information did not violate the offender's due process rights where he did not request an amendment and could not establish prejudice. The trial court complied with Crim.R. 11(C)(4)(a) and (b) before accepting the offender's plea when it made the requisite warnings and the offender indicated he understood those warnings. The trial court did not commit plain error in failing to consider the offender's ability to pay restitution because Marsy's Law requires full and timely restitution to all victims, and supersedes the statutory requirement that the trial court consider the offender's ability to pay. Consecutive sentences were not clearly and convincingly contrary to law where the offender caused a significant amount of psychological, mental, and monetary harm through his crimes, making a single prison term inadequate to reflect the seriousness of his conduct, and was not disproportionate to the danger the offender poses to the public. Trial court was not ineffective where the offender could not establish either deficient performance by counsel or prejudice.