State v. Colon’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

27 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(A) Except as otherwise provided in this division and in addition to imposing court costs pursuant to section 2947.23 of the Revised Code, the court imposing a sentence upon an offender for a felony may sentence the offender to any financial sanction or combination of financial sanctions authorized under this section or, in the circumstances specified in section 2929.32 of the Revised Code, may impose upon the offender a fine in accordance with that section. Financial sanctions that may be imposed pursuant to this section include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) Restitution 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. If the court imposes restitution, the court shall order that the restitution be made to the victim in open court, to the adult probation department that serves the county on behalf of the victim, to the clerk of courts, or to another agency designated by the court. * * * If the court decides to impose restitution, the court shall hold a hearing on restitution if the offender, victim, or survivor disputes the amount.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Perkins

2. “'agency designed by the court.' " Id. at ¶ 9, quoting R.C. 2929.18(A)(1). The Supreme Court found the reparations fund was such an agency. Id. Contrary to what the state suggests, the Supreme Court did not find a trial court has discretion to order a defendant to pay restitution under R.C. 2929.18(A)(1) to a third party that does not fit into one of the enumerated categories of payees. That issue was not before the Supreme Court. Rather, the issue before the Supreme Court was whether the reparations fund fit into one of the specifically designated payee categories under R.C. 2929.18(A) such that the trial court could, in its discretion, order restitution be paid to the fund. See id. at ¶ 14 (Noting that a trial court, under the current version of R.C. 2929.18(A), "retains the discretion to order that restitution be paid to certain third parties, namely, an adult probation department, the clerk of courts, or another agency designed by the court.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Johnson

3. “[T]he current version of R.C. 2929.18(A)(1) does not authorize restitution to third parties other than those enumerated in the statute. * * * A state reparations fund, for example, is a permissible agency designated by the trial court that may receive restitution. * * * A private insurance company is not.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Johnson