Automated Summary
Key Facts
Dustin Canter was indicted for Theft from a Person in a Protected Class (R.C. 2913.02(A)(1)) and later pleaded no contest to Receiving Stolen Property (R.C. 2929.51(A) & (C)). The plea agreement specified restitution would be determined at sentencing. At the May 30, 2025 sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered Canter to pay $4,846.00 in restitution after an evidentiary hearing where both the State and Canter presented arguments about the value of stolen jewelry. Canter disputed the restitution amount but did not request a separate hearing. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding Canter's due process rights were not violated as he was given a meaningful opportunity to be heard during the sentencing hearing.
Issues
The trial court's determination of restitution during the sentencing hearing and whether this procedure violated the defendant's due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article One, Section 16 of the Ohio Constitution. The court found Canter agreed to the restitution hearing being conducted during sentencing and did not request a separate hearing, upholding the trial court's decision.
Holdings
The court affirmed the trial court's decision to order Canter to pay $4,846.00 in restitution, finding no violation of due process rights. Canter agreed during the plea hearing that restitution would be determined at sentencing, and he failed to request a separate hearing after the amount was set. The court held that Canter was afforded a meaningful opportunity to be heard during the sentencing hearing, which included presenting arguments and evidence disputing the restitution amount. His failure to object further after the trial court's determination led to the overruling of his assignment of error.
Remedies
- restitution in the amount of $4,846.00 to the victim
- twelve (12) months in prison
Monetary Damages
4846.00
Legal Principles
The court applied the 'clear and convincing evidence' standard under the Fourteenth Amendment and Article One, Section 16 of the Ohio Constitution to review the trial court's restitution determination. This standard requires the appellate court to examine whether the record supports the trial court's findings with sufficient evidence to establish a firm belief or conviction.
Precedent Name
- State v. Cowan
- Mathews v. Eldridge
- State v. Poff
- State v. Marcum
- State v. Andrews
Cited Statute
Ohio Revised Code
Judge Name
- Robert G. Montgomery
- Andrew J. King
- William B. Hoffman
Passage Text
- This Court finds, Canter agreed that the trial court would hold an evidentiary hearing during the sentencing hearing. The trial court addressed the issue of restitution at the sentencing hearing and afforded Canter the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. Canter failed to object or request a hearing after the trial court determined the amount of restitution to be paid by Canter to the victim.
- Canter disputed the amount of restitution during the hearing when he 'objected to SF's estimate of the value of the stolen jewelry calling it 'speculative' ', argued that 'SF was not an expert in jewelry valuation,' and that 'SF's claim lacked precision as to exactly what items were stolen.' Id., pp. 49-55. These arguments were made by counsel for Canter as part of the evidentiary hearing.