State v. Fogle

Summary

The Second District Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed Ellen Fogle’s misdemeanor convictions arising from incidents involving her dogs. The court held that information in the presentence investigation report adequately supported a $265.92 restitution order and declined to find plain error based on the absence of testimony or documentary evidence confirming the loss.

Holdings

1. The presentence investigation report contained sufficient information to support the $265.92 restitution order to a reasonable degree of certainty, including references to the victim's medical bill and veterinary bill.
2. A defendant who does not dispute the restitution amount, request a hearing, or otherwise object waives all but plain-error review.
3. The judgments in Montgomery C.A. Nos. 30521 and 30522 were affirmed because Fogle assigned no error in those cases.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the municipal court committed plain error by ordering $265.92 in restitution without testimony, documentary evidence, or other information adequately establishing the victim's economic loss.
2. Whether the appellate court should affirm the unchallenged judgments in the two consolidated cases for which Fogle assigned no error.

Disposition

affirmed