State v. Reynolds

[Cite as State v. Reynolds, 2026-Ohio-1397.]


                               IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                                  SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                     MONTGOMERY COUNTY

 STATE OF OHIO                                       :
                                                     :   C.A. No. 30512
       Appellee                                      :
                                                     :   Trial Court Case No. 2025 CR 00209
 v.                                                  :
                                                     :   (Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas
 JERMAINE REYNOLDS                                   :   Court)
                                                     :
       Appellant                                     :   FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY &
                                                     :   OPINION

                                               ...........

        Pursuant to the opinion of this court rendered on April 17, 2026, the judgment of the

trial court is affirmed.

        Costs to be paid as stated in App.R. 24.

        Pursuant to Ohio App.R. 30(A), the clerk of the court of appeals shall immediately

serve notice of this judgment upon all parties and make a note in the docket of the service.

Additionally, pursuant to App.R. 27, the clerk of the court of appeals shall send a certified

copy of this judgment, which constitutes a mandate, to the clerk of the trial court and note

the service on the appellate docket.


                                        For the court,




                                        MARY K. HUFFMAN, JUDGE

TUCKER, J., and HANSEMAN, J., concur.
                                    OPINION
                             MONTGOMERY C.A. No. 30512


JOHN A. FISCHER, Attorney for Appellant
JONATHAN MURRAY, Attorney for Appellee


HUFFMAN, J.

      {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant Jermaine Reynolds appeals the trial court’s judgment

granting restitution for medical expenses to the victim of his domestic violence charge.

Reynolds contends that the trial court erred in awarding $3,067 in restitution without

sufficient evidence to substantiate the amount. Because the trial court appropriately based

the restitution award on its review of the presentence investigation report, we affirm its

judgment.

                      I. Background Facts and Procedural History

      {¶ 2} Following a violent incident with his then-girlfriend allegedly causing her injury,

Reynolds was indicted on one count of strangulation (family/household/dating) in violation

of R.C. 2903.18(B)(3), a felony of the fourth degree, and one count of domestic violence

(knowingly) in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A), a misdemeanor of the first degree. Reynolds

pleaded guilty to the domestic violence charge, and the strangulation charge was dismissed

as part of the plea agreement.

      {¶ 3} During Reynolds’s sentencing hearing, the trial court, without further

elaboration, stated that it had reviewed Reynolds’s presentence investigation report (“PSI”).

The PSI contained a victim impact statement, noting that the victim was requesting

restitution of $3,067 to cover the cost of her medical bills (including a CT scan) related to

the incident. Three medical bills were included in the PSI, and the bills indicated that the

victim’s payment responsibility totaled $3,067.54. The victim read a statement to the court


                                              2
during the hearing, stating that she was mentally and physically injured by Reynolds and

that he had left her with a facial scar and medical bills. She did not offer copies of her medical

bills as evidence during the hearing.

       {¶ 4} The trial court sentenced Reynolds to 180 days in jail and ordered him to pay

$3,067 in restitution to the victim. Reynolds did not object to the restitution order but now

appeals.

                                   II. Assignment of Error

       {¶ 5} In his assignment of error, Reynolds contends that the trial court erred when it

awarded $3,067 in restitution against him without any evidence to substantiate the amount.

He argues that the trial court’s statement in the record that it had reviewed the PSI was

insufficient for determining the amount of the restitution award and that it should have

explicitly stated how it reached the total. We disagree.

       {¶ 6} Under R.C. 2929.28, a trial court may impose financial sanctions on a

defendant, including restitution for victims of misdemeanor crimes. “Crime victims should

receive restitution from those whose crimes have directly and proximately caused them to

suffer economic loss or detriment.” State v. Yerkey, 2022-Ohio-4298, ¶ 19. A “victim” is a

person against whom the criminal offense or delinquent act is committed or who is directly

and proximately harmed by the commission of the offense or act. Ohio Const., art. I,

§ 10a(D).

       {¶ 7} If an offender is being sentenced for a criminal offense as defined in

R.C. 2930.01, a court imposing a sentence upon the offender for a misdemeanor crime shall

sentence the offender to make restitution pursuant to R.C. 2929.28(A) and R.C. 2929.281.

R.C. 2929.28(A). R.C. 2929.28(A)(1) states:

       The court shall determine the amount of restitution to be paid by the offender.


                                                3
       The victim, victim’s representative, victim’s attorney, if applicable, the

       prosecutor or the prosecutor’s designee, and the offender may provide

       information relevant to the determination of the amount of restitution. 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. . . . The court shall determine the amount of full

       restitution by a preponderance of the evidence.

       {¶ 8} In determining the amount of restitution at the time of sentencing, the court shall

order full restitution for any expenses related to a victim’s economic loss due to the criminal

offense. R.C. 2929.281(A)(2). “Economic loss” means “any economic detriment suffered by

a victim as a direct and proximate result of the commission of an offense” and includes

“medical expenses.” R.C. 2929.01(L); R.C. 2929.281(A)(2). “The amount of restitution may

be based 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.’” State v. Leach, 2017-Ohio-8420, ¶ 7 (2d Dist.), quoting

State v. Lalain, 2013-Ohio-3093, ¶ 3. “The evidence to support a restitution order can take

the form of either documentary evidence or testimony.” State v. Williams, 2017-Ohio-125,

¶ 15 (2d Dist.), quoting State v. Jones, 2014-Ohio-3740, ¶ 23 (10th Dist.). “An order of

restitution must be supported by competent, credible evidence in the record.” State v.

Jacobs, 2018-Ohio-671, ¶ 9 (2d Dist.), citing State v. Amburgey, 2011-Ohio-748, ¶ 129 (2d

Dist.), citing State v. Warner, 55 Ohio St.3d 31 (1990). “Implicit in this principle is that the

amount claimed must be established to a reasonable degree of certainty before restitution

can be ordered.” State v. Golar, 2003-Ohio-5861, ¶ 9 (11th Dist.). The court must conduct a

restitution hearing if the offender, victim, or survivor disputes the amount. Lalain at ¶ 3.


                                               4
       {¶ 9} In general, “a trial court’s imposition of restitution is reviewed on appeal for an

abuse of discretion.” State v. Brown, 2024-Ohio-2004, ¶ 12 (2d Dist.), citing State v. Wilson,

2015-Ohio-3167, ¶ 11 (2d Dist.). However, “a defendant who does not dispute an amount of

restitution, request a hearing, or otherwise object waives all but plain error in regards to the

order of restitution.” State v. Twitty, 2011-Ohio-4725, ¶ 26 (2d Dist.), citing State v. Ratliff,

2011-Ohio-2313, ¶ 14 (2d Dist.).

       {¶ 10} “In criminal cases where an objection is not raised at the trial court level, ‘plain

error’ is governed by Crim. R. 52(B), which states, ‘Plain errors or defects affecting

substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the

court.’” State v. Wertman, 2019-Ohio-4940, ¶ 16 (5th Dist.). Plain error arises only when “but

for the error, the outcome of the trial clearly would have been otherwise.” State v. Long,

53 Ohio St.2d 91 (1978), paragraph two of the syllabus. “In order to constitute plain error,

the error must be an obvious defect in the trial proceedings, and the error must have affected

substantial rights.” State v. Mobley, 2016-Ohio-4579, ¶ 30 (2d Dist.), citing State v.

Norris, 2015-Ohio-624, ¶ 22 (2d Dist.); Crim.R. 52(B).

       {¶ 11} “[E]ven if an accused shows that the trial court committed plain error affecting

the outcome of the proceeding, an appellate court is not required to correct it.” State v.

Rogers, 2015-Ohio-2459, ¶ 23. “‘An appellate court may, in its discretion, correct an error

not raised in the trial court only where the appellant demonstrates that (1) there is an error;

(2) the error is clear or obvious, rather than subject to reasonable dispute; (3) the error

affected the appellant’s substantial rights, which in the ordinary case means it affected the

outcome of the . . . court proceedings; and (4) the error seriously affect[s] the fairness,

integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’” (Cleaned up.) Wertman at ¶ 17,

quoting United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258, 262 (2010). Plain error should be noticed


                                                5
“with the utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a manifest

miscarriage of justice.” Long at paragraph three of the syllabus.

       {¶ 12} Because Reynolds did not raise any objections before the trial court, he waived

all but plain error on appeal, so we apply plain error analysis to his assignment of error.

Reynolds, as the appellant, bears the burden of demonstrating that plain error by the trial

court affected his substantial rights. Wertman at ¶ 18, citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S.

725, 734 (1993), and State v. Perry, 101 Ohio St.3d 118, 120 (2004).

       {¶ 13} Here, the trial court was permitted to base the amount of restitution on the PSI,

which in this case included the victim’s impact statement and billing documents. Upon its

review of the PSI, the court apparently found a direct and proximate link between Reynolds’s

actions and the victim’s economic loss, making restitution proper and allowing the court to

determine, within a reasonable degree of certainty, that the amount of the victim’s economic

loss in medical expenses was $3,067. Under these circumstances, we cannot say the trial

court committed plain error affecting the outcome of the proceeding or that there was any

error affecting Reynolds’s substantial rights. Reynolds’s assignment of error is overruled.

                                       III. Conclusion

       {¶ 14} The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

                                       .............

TUCKER, J., and HANSEMAN, J., concur.




                                              6