State v. Goff ( 2020 )

[Cite as State v. Goff, 2020-Ohio-1474.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-190093
TRIAL NO. B-1804019
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
vs. :
O P I N I O N.
MICHAEL GOFF, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas
Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: April 15, 2020
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Adam Tieger,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,
Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, and Lora Peters, Assistant
Public Defender, for Defendant-Appellant.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
MYERS, Judge.
{¶1} After Michael Goff cashed a forged check at First Financial Bank, he
was charged with felony theft and forgery. In exchange for Goff’s guilty plea to a
reduced charge of misdemeanor theft, the state dismissed the forgery charge. The
trial court sentenced Goff to 180 days in jail and ordered him to pay restitution to the
bank in the amount of the forged check.
{¶2} Goff now appeals. In a single assignment of error, he argues that the
trial court erred by ordering him to pay restitution to the bank because the bank is
not a “victim” under R.C. 2929.28(A)(1), the statute that allows a court to order an
offender to pay restitution to the victim of a misdemeanor. He contends that a bank
that cashes a forged check and then recredits its depositor’s account does not suffer
direct economic harm as a result of the offense and therefore is not a “victim” under
the statute.
{¶3} R.C. 2929.28(A)(1) allows a court to sentence a misdemeanor offender
to the financial sanction of “restitution by the offender to the victim of the offender’s
crime or any survivor of the victim, in an amount based upon the victim’s economic
loss.” The amount of restitution is limited to “the amount of the economic loss
suffered by the victim as a direct and proximate result of the commission of the
offense.” Id. The statute does not define the term “victim.”
{¶4} While this appeal was pending, the Supreme Court of Ohio released
State v. Allen, Slip Opinion No. 2019-Ohio-4757, in which it construed R.C.
2929.18(A)(1), the counterpart to R.C. 2929.28(A)(1) that applies to felony offenders
2
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
and contains the same restitution provision.1 Because the term “victim” is not
defined in R.C. 2929.18, the court looked to the ordinary meaning of the term. Id. at
¶ 4.
{¶5} In Allen, the Supreme Court held that a bank that cashes a forged
check and recredits its depositor’s account is a victim “under any plausible, common-
sense understanding of the word ‘victim.’ ” Id. at ¶ 5. The court pointed to three
primary considerations in support of its holding: (1) a bank loses its property
interest in the deposited money at the moment it pays a fraudulent check; (2) a bank
has a statutory duty to correct its erroneous deductions from a depositor’s account;
and (3) a bank is the target of the fraud because it is duped by the defendant when he
presents the forged check to the bank teller. Id. at ¶ 7-10. Under these
circumstances, the court stated, “the banks are victims under any common-sense
understanding of that term. A person or a business entity is paradigmatically a
victim when they are duped into giving their property to a thief, and they suffer an
economic loss as a result.” Id. at ¶ 10.
{¶6} The same logic applies whether the bank is a victim of a felony or a
misdemeanor offense. Thus, we apply the reasoning of Allen and hold that under
R.C. 2929.28(A)(1), a bank that cashes a forged check and then recredits its
depositor’s account is a victim to which the forger can be required to pay restitution.
Consequently, we hold that the trial court did not err in ordering Goff to pay
restitution to First Financial Bank. We overrule the assignment of error and affirm
the trial court’s judgment.
1 R.C. 2929.18(A)(1) allows a trial court to sentence a felony offender to a financial sanction of
“[r]estitution by the offender to the victim of the offender’s crime or any survivor of the victim, in
an amount based on the victim’s economic loss.”
3
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
Judgment affirmed.
MOCK, P.J., and WINKLER, J., concur.
Please note:
The court has recorded its own entry this date.
4