State v. Gibson

Summary

The First District Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed the Hamilton County Municipal Court’s restitution order in a criminal-damaging case. The victim argued that her rights to notice, to be heard, and to full restitution under Ohio’s Marsy’s Law were violated. Because the victim did not provide transcripts of the trial-court proceedings, the appellate court presumed regularity and affirmed.

Holdings

1. A crime victim may challenge a restitution order on direct appeal, and the defendant does not obtain an expectation of finality in the sentence while that direct appeal remains pending. If the appellate court sets aside a voidable sentence on direct appeal, the trial court retains jurisdiction on remand to impose a sentence authorized by law.
2. An appellant who challenges a trial court ruling based on facts shown in the proceedings must provide the necessary transcript or other record materials. Without a transcript or other material substantiating the victim's claims, the appellate court must presume the regularity of the proceedings and presume that the State and trial court complied with Marsy's Law.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a crime victim may challenge a restitution order on direct appeal after the defendant has completed the sentence.
2. Whether the absence of a transcript required the appellate court to presume that the trial court and prosecutor complied with the victim's rights to notice, to be heard, and to restitution under Marsy's Law.

Disposition

affirmed