Youngstown Daily Legal News

Judges reverse restitution after finding record did not support amount ordered

JESSICA SHAMBAUGH
Special to the Legal News
Published: September 24, 2013

The 4th District Court of Appeals ruled last week that a trial court imposed an improper restitution amount for a man convicted of kidnapping a child and then assaulting her grandfather when he tried to interfere.

The three-judge appellate panel found that the Meigs County Court of Common Pleas ordered Nathan McDaniel to pay a restitution amount that was not clearly related to the actual loss suffered by the victim.

McDaniel appealed the trial court’s decision after it ordered him to pay $1.4 million.

The facts of the case state that Curtis Dailey was living with his ex-wife to help raise their granddaughter in November 2011.

McDaniel was a longtime friend of the child’s mother and the couple was not suspicious when he stopped by to visit.

However, when they were not looking, McDaniel grabbed the child and took her to his vehicle.

Dailey noticed the girl was missing and ran outside to find McDaniel with her.

The men began to fight over the child and were soon tugging her back and forth.

McDaniel then started beating Dailey and Dailey sustained substantial injuries.

Dailey’s ex-wife called the sheriff’s department and she and the dispatcher heard McDaniel shout that the family owed him money.

He continued to threaten the family if they did not repay him the money they owed.

McDaniel was arrested and charged with felonious assault, kidnapping and extortion.

The matter proceeded to jury trial and he was convicted of felonious assault and kidnapping. He was acquitted of extortion.

The Meigs County court sentenced McDaniel to eight years for felonious assault and 10 years for kidnapping for a total of 18 years in prison.

At the sentencing hearing, a victim’s advocate explained that Dailey had incurred more than $300,000 in medical expenses and would likely incur an additional $800,000 in the future.

The record shows that the trial court told the defense “I am going to order 1.4 million dollars ... in restitution to the victims in this case knowing that your client can’t pay it.”

On appeal to the 4th District, McDaniel argued that the trial court improperly ordered a restitution amount that was not supported by credible evidence.

“Appellant challenges neither his conviction nor his prison sentences. Rather, his assignments of error are directed at the part of the judgment that ordered him to pay $1.4 million in restitution,” Judge Peter B. Abele stated.

The appellate judges found the trial court based the restitution order entirely on the figures provided by the victim’s advocate.

Those figures were assumed to be included in the Victim Impact Statement, but the judges found that the information was not included in the record on appeal.

They also determined that the advocate presented an unsworn statement and failed to provide an itemized list of Dailey’s medical bills.

“Consequently, this court is being asked to affirm a restitution order that is based on a victim’s advocate unsworn statement, without anything in the record to support that statement. Furthermore, the amounts mentioned at the hearing do not appear to equal the amount included in the trial court’s order,” Judge Abele continued.

On review, the judges calculated that even if they accepted the amounts given, those numbers created a total of $1.27 million, which was less than the amount granted by the court.

They ruled that the record did not substantiate the amount of Dailey’s loss and stated that the amount granted was arbitrary.

“We wish to emphasize that we are not unsympathetic with the reasons that the victim’s advocate and the trial court expressed for imposing restitution. The facts and circumstances of these offenses are horrific,” Judge Abele wrote.

Still, the judges held that the trial court must consider McDaniel’s ability to pay restitution and should consider the request for restitution only if it is supported by the proper evidence.

“Having sustained appellant’s first assignment of error, we hereby reverse that part of the trial court’s judgment that awarded restitution and remand that portion of the judgment for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Judges William Harsha and Marie Hoover concurred.

The case is cited State v. McDaniel, 2013-Ohio-4003.

[Back]