State v. Weiss

Citations

• 2025 Ohio 277

Syllabus

Restitution; motion to modify; R.C. 2929.18; restitution to third parties; evidence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion to modify restitution. At the time restitution was imposed, the relevant statute permitted restitution to third parties such as insurance companies. Ohio Supreme Court precedent indicates that courts must look to the version of the restitution statute as it existed at the time of a defendant's sentencing, i.e., whether the person or entity was statutorily eligible for restitution at the time of sentencing. In addition, restitution is not merely to benefit the victim, but is an integral part of an offender's sentence for both punishment and retribution. Defendant did not provide evidence that he had satisfied his restitution obligations. Finally, defendant failed to offer any evidence that the victim had been compensated in whole or in part by an insurance carrier or other third party. Representations by counsel do not constitute evidence.