 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Hicks12/31/2003
definitions created an unintentional anomaly in sentencing. A trial court could order restitution only in cases where the offender's conduct posed a substantial threat of personal injury or death. As we noted in Swart, "R.C. 2929.01 was amended, effective March 23, 2000, so that the term 'economic loss' encompasses any economic detriment suffered by a victim as a result of the commission of any felony. This revision corrects the unfortunate anomaly under former R.C. 2929.01 which, in some cases, allowed criminals to profit from their crimes." Swart, Clinton App. No. CA2000-02-006, at 10, fn. 2.
Although "economic loss" now encompasses any economic detriment suffered by a victim as a result of the commission of a felony, "includ * any property loss * incurred as a result of the commission of the felony," R.C. 2929.01(M), we decline to apply R.C. 2929.01(M) to an alleged felony victim where the defendant has not been charged with respect to that particular victim. Based upon R.C. 2929.18(A)(1) and Swart, restitution clearly remains limited to the loss caused by the offender's criminal conduct for which he was indicted. The trial court therefore erred by ordering appellant to pay restitution to Firstar.
Appellant's fourth assignment of error is accordingly sustained in part and overruled in part. Appellant's sentence requiring him to pay restitution to the 18 customers and three commercial suppliers is affirmed. Pursuant to App.R. 12(B), that portion of appellant's sentence requiring him to pay restitution to Firstar is vacated.
Judgment is affirmed as modified. VALEN, P.J., and POWELL, J., concur.
|