Various courts have held that "a defendant may be resentenced on guilty verdicts merged for sentencing when the charge which the state elected to proceed at sentencing is reversed on appeal." State v. Horn, 6th Dist. Wood No. WD-21-062, 2023-Ohio-138, ¶ 15. See also State v. Turner, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2020-CA-49, 2021-Ohio-2216 and State v. Johnson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 106450, 2018-Ohio-3670, 119 N.E.3d 914.
The amount of the restitution must be supported by competent, credible evidence in the record and discernable to a reasonable degree of certainty. Cleveland v. Figueroa, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 111267, 2022-Ohio-4012, ¶ 9, citing State v. Johnson, 2018-Ohio-3670, 119 N.E.3d 914, ¶ 55 (8th Dist.) "Generally, appellate courts review trial courts' restitution orders for abuse of discretion."
Moreover, the amount of the restitution imposed "'must be supported by competent, credible evidence from which the court can discern the amount of the restitution to a reasonable degree of certainty.'" State v. Johnson, 2018-Ohio-3670, 119 N.E.3d 914, ¶ 55 (8th Dist.), quoting State v. Gears, 135 Ohio App.3d 297, 300, 733 N.E.2d 683 (6th Dist.1999). The evidence in the record must be enough to substantiate the relationship of the offender's criminal conduct to the amount of the victim's loss.
"'must be supported by competent, credible evidence from which the court can discern the amount of the restitution to a reasonable degree of certainty.'" State v. Johnson, 2018-Ohio-3670, 119 N.E.3d 914, ¶ 55 (8th Dist.), quoting State v. Gears, 135 Ohio App.3d 297, 300, 733 N.E.2d 683 (6th Dist.1999). The evidence in the record must be enough to substantiate the relationship of the offender's criminal conduct to the amount of the victim's loss.
Id. at ¶ 11. See State v. Johnson, 2018-Ohio-3670, 119 N.E.3d 914, ¶ 6 (8th Dist.).
R.C. 2929.28(A)(1). Moreover, the amount of the restitution imposed "'must be supported by competent, credible evidence from which the court can discern the amount of the restitution to a reasonable degree of certainty.'" State v. Johnson, 2018-Ohio-3670, 119 N.E.3d 914, ¶ 55 (8th Dist.), quoting State v. Gears, 135 Ohio App.3d 297, 300, 733 N.E.2d 683 (6th Dist.1999).
In determining the appropriate amount of restitution, the court "may base the amount of restitution it orders 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[.]" R.C. 2929.18(A)(1); see also State v. Lalain, 136 Ohio St.3d 248, 2013-Ohio-3093, 994 N.E.2d 423, paragraphs one and two of the syllabus. Moreover, the amount of the restitution imposed "'must be supported by competent, credible evidence from which the court can discern the amount of the restitution to a reasonable degree of certainty.'" State v. Johnson, 2018-Ohio-3670, 119 N.E.3d 914, ¶ 55 (8th Dist.), quoting State v. Gears, 135 Ohio App.3d 297, 300, 733 N.E.2d 683 (6th Dist.1999).
When examining whether the record supports the trial court's consecutive-sentence findings, support for the court's findings is not confined to the trial court's comments at sentencing but rather may appear anywhere in the record. State v. Gilcrease, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 108148, 2020-Ohio-487, ¶ 83, citing State v. Johnson, 2018-Ohio-3670, 119 N.E.3d 914, ¶ 52 (8th Dist.); State v. Gatewood, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 101271, 2015-Ohio-1288, ¶ 13, citing State v. Venes, 2013-Ohio-1891, 992 N.E.2d 453, ¶ 20-22 (8th Dist.). Because the record reveals that the issue of Knight's mental illness was identified and addressed throughout the entire proceeding, his present assertion is not well taken.
{¶ 11} The amount of the restitution imposed '"must be supported by competent, credible evidence from which the court can discern the amount of the restitution to a reasonable degree of certainty.'" State v. Johnson, 2018-Ohio-3670, 119 N.E.3d 914, ¶ 55 (8th Dist.), quoting State v. Gears, 135 Ohio App.3d 297, 300, 733 N.E.2d 683 (6th Dist.1999); see also State v. Mills, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 107233, 2019-Ohio-706, ¶ 33 ("[P]rior to imposing restitution, a trial court must determine the amount of restitution to a reasonable degree of certainty, ensuring that the amount is supported by competent, credible evidence."); State v. Lenard, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 105998, 2018-Ohio-3365, ¶ 70 ("Although the decision to impose restitution is discretionary with the court, its determination of the amount of loss is a factual question that we review under the competent, credible evidence standard.").
The amount of restitution ordered must be supported by competent, credible evidence from which the trial court can calculate restitution to a reasonable degree of certainty. State v. Johnson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga, 2018-Ohio-3670, 119 N.E.3d 914, ¶ 55. {¶21} In the context of restitution, however, "economic loss" is defined as: