[Cite as State v. Manning,
2025-Ohio-3101.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LUCAS COUNTY
State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. L-24-1136
Appellee Trial Court No. CR0202302692
v.
Paul Manning DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: August 29, 2025
…
Julia R. Bates, Esq., Lucas County Prosecutor and
Randy L. Meyer, Esq., Assistant Prosecutor, for appellee.
W. Alex Smith, Esq., for appellant.
…
DUHART, J.
{¶ 1} This case is before the court on appellant, Paul Manning’s appeal from the
May 2, 2024 judgment of the Lucas County Common Pleas Court. For the reasons that
follow, we affirm.
Assignment of Error
{¶ 2} The trial court erred by failing to hold a restitution hearing despite
[Manning’s] objection to the amount requested.
Background
{¶ 3} On February 8, 2024, Manning entered a plea to Count 1, attempted theft
from a protected class, in violation of R.C. 2923.02 and 2913.02(A)(3) and (B)(3), a
felony of the fifth degree. As part of the plea, Manning agreed to pay restitution to the
victim in the amount of $2,720. During the plea colloquy, Manning was asked if he
understood that there was an agreement that he would pay restitution to the victim in the
amount of $2,700,1 and he responded in the affirmative. Additionally, the plea form
signed by Manning states, in part, that “defendant agrees to pay restitution to the victim
in the above matter in the amount of $2,720.00.” Then, after Manning was found guilty,
his attorney again acknowledged the restitution amount and asked whether the court
would be willing to extend the sentencing date out six to eight weeks as Manning would
“be able to make probably the full restitution amount” in that timeframe. The court
complied and scheduled sentencing for April 8, 2024. When he appeared for sentencing
1
This is different than the amount discussed in the plea agreement, and later in the
settlement hearing, however, this is the amount stated in the transcript.
2.
on April 9, 2024,2 the judge again continued the sentencing date, at Manning’s request, to
allow Manning to pay restitution.
{¶ 4} Manning appeared for sentencing on April 29, 2024. The judge asked
Manning if he had a certified check with him to pay for restitution, or if he was prepared
to proceed. He said he didn’t, explaining:
[I]t’s not a problem with paying. That ain’t the problem. The
problem is the affidavit that was put in to begin with. It’s an exaggeration
on an affidavit which is perjury.
I tried to call down and see if I could get the price of what I owe,
because they did go pick up material on September 23rd. It wasn’t me, it
was them. So I need to find out what the actual real cost is and not what
they’re alleging because that’s an exaggeration, which is perjury.
The following conversation then occurred:
THE COURT: Well, Mr. Manning, there was a negotiated plea in
this case which [led] to you being in front of me today for sentencing, and
the agreed restitution was $2,720, so any dispute over that amount ended at
the time that you entered into this negotiated plea with the State to reduce
the charge that you were found guilty of. If you don’t have the restitution
today, that’s fine, but I’m still going to proceed with sentencing, Okay?
[MANNING]: So why can’t I rescind my plea?
THE COURT: Well, I don’t have the motion in front of me to
withdraw your plea, and you stood in front of me and went over the entire
plea. We talked about the nature of the charges against you, the potential
penalties associated with it.
[MANNING]: That plea doesn’t have the offer from the State on it
either, Your Honor.
2 Although it was initially scheduled for April 8, 2024, it was rescheduled as the
courthouse was closed April 8th.
3.
THE COURT: I’m sorry, what?
[MANNING]: I said the plea doesn’t have the offer from the State
neither [sic] on it.
THE COURT: The plea form that you signed indicated that the
State of Ohio will request a no-contact order with the victim and that you
agreed to pay restitution to the victim in the amount of $2,720. And then in
exchange for reducing the charge to an attempted theft, felony of the fifth
degree, you entered into a guilty plea where you completely admitted your
guilt on the record after I made thorough inquiry of you as to whether or
not you understood the nature of the charge against you, what you were
pleading guilty to, and the potential penalties associated with it.
{¶ 5} Manning’s case was recalled at the end of docket, and a hearing was held on
his oral motion to withdraw the plea. Manning’s attorney first commented that she didn’t
entirely understand his desire to withdraw his plea, but she was concerned that he thought
“he promised to pay this money and he doesn’t have it and so now he’s, perhaps, feeling
like he has to withdraw the plea in order to not pay the money on the timeline that we
promised.” The court assured Manning that he was not expected to pay it in full by the
time of sentencing, but Manning explained that the problem was not the money, he had
the money. The problem was the dollar amount. Manning believed the amount he owed
was less than the amount of restitution ordered.
{¶ 6} The court ultimately denied Manning’s motion to withdraw his plea and
sentenced him to two years of community control and ordered him to pay restitution to
the victim in the amount of $2,720.
{¶ 7} Manning appealed.
4.
Law and Analysis
{¶ 8} We first note that Manning has not raised as error the trial court’s denial of
his oral motion to withdraw his plea, nor has he made any such argument in his brief. As
this issue has not been raised as an assignment of error, it is not before us for
consideration. See App.R. 12(A)(1)(b), State v. Morse, 2025-Ohio-2713, ¶ 16, fn. 1 (6th
Dist.).
{¶ 9} Instead, Manning’s only assigned error is that he properly objected to the
amount of restitution and therefore was entitled to a hearing. He claims failure to
conduct a hearing was plain error, and that there was no evidence supporting the amount
of restitution. The State raises two arguments in rebuttal. First, the State argues that R.C.
2953.08(D)(1) precludes Manning from raising this issue as the amount of restitution was
jointly recommended in the plea agreement. Second, the State maintains that Manning
waived his right to a hearing under R.C. 2929.18(A)(1) when the amount of restitution
was already stipulated to as part of his guilty plea agreement. The State also points out
that Manning did not request a restitution hearing; instead, he made an oral motion to
withdraw his plea.
{¶ 10} R.C. 2929.18(A)(1) provides for a trial court to sentence an offender to pay
restitution in “an amount based on the victim’s economic loss.”
{¶ 11} Generally, “[t]he proper standard of review for analyzing the imposition of
restitution as a part of a felony sentence is whether the sentence complies with R.C.
2953.08(G)(2)(b).” State v. Young, 2020-Ohio-4943, ¶ 11 (6th Dist.), quoting State v.
5.
Collins,
2015-Ohio-3710, ¶ 31 (12th Dist.). Therefore, instead of reviewing the judgment
for abuse of discretion, we must determine whether the restitution imposed was clearly
and convincingly contrary to law, rather than reviewing for an abuse of discretion.”
Id.
quoting State v. Cantrill,
2020-Ohio-1235, ¶ 87 (6th Dist.).
{¶ 12} However, “[o]ur general ability to review a felony sentence is eliminated
when the defendant and prosecutor jointly recommend a sentence, the sentencing judge
imposes the recommended sentence, and the sentence is ‘authorized by law.’ R.C.
2953.08(D)(1).” State v. Eames, 2024-Ohio-183, ¶ 14 (6th Dist.).
{¶ 13} Here, Manning and the State agreed to the amount of restitution. Manning
approved the amount both in the written plea form, and at the plea hearing. And the trial
court imposed the agreed-upon amount. The only remaining issue is whether the
sentence is authorized by law.
{¶ 14} In Eames, we noted:
“A sentence is ‘authorized by law’ and is not appealable within the
meaning of R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) only if it comports with all mandatory
sentencing provisions.’ … State v. Underwood … 2010-Ohio-1…
paragraph two of the syllabus. Under R.C. 2929.18(A), a sentencing court's
decision to order restitution is discretionary. State v. Lalain, …2013-Ohio-
3093, … ¶ 23. But, if the court chooses to impose that sanction, R.C.
2929.18(A)(1) contains mandatory provisions that the court must follow.
State v. Brant, … 2016-Ohio-5274, ¶ 18 [(6th Dist.)], citing State v. Burns,
2012-Ohio-4191, …, ¶ 19 (6th Dist.).” Id. at ¶ 14.
{¶ 15} Generally, one such mandatory provision is that “[t]he court shall hold a
hearing on restitution if the offender, victim, victim's representative, or victim's estate
disputes the amount.” R.C. 2929.18(A)(1). However, in this instance, we find the
6.
restitution hearing provision inapplicable as the amount of restitution was specifically
agreed to in the plea agreement. Manning argues he was entitled to a hearing “to contest
the restitution order,” but we have previously stated that a defendant waives any
argument concerning the accuracy of the restitution amount when it is stipulated to as
part of the plea agreement. State v. O'Brien, 2021-Ohio-4037, ¶ 20 (6th Dist.). See also
Brant at ¶ 22 (finding no restitution hearing necessary, in part because “the circumstances
did not reflect any lingering uncertainty regarding the amount of restitution.”). We have
also found a stipulation as to the amount of restitution “provides a sufficient basis for the
restitution amount under the statute.” State v. Speweike,
2011-Ohio-493, ¶ 39 (6th Dist.).
Additionally, as the amount of restitution was part of the plea agreement, it cannot be
attacked separately from the plea agreement itself. See O’Brien at ¶ 26 (“[A] defendant
cannot simply attack one aspect of the plea agreement.”). Here, as mentioned above,
Manning did not appeal the denial of his request to withdraw his plea.
{¶ 16} As Manning has not identified any applicable mandatory sentencing
provisions that were not adhered to, we find that Manning’s sentence is authorized by
law. Therefore, R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) bars our review of Manning’s assignment of error.
{¶ 17} Moreover, even if Manning were able to raise this issue on appeal, he
cannot demonstrate that the restitution award was contrary to law. For the reasons
discussed above, when considering the specific facts before us, we find Manning was not
entitled to a restitution hearing.
{¶ 18} Accordingly, Manning’s assignment of error is found not well-taken.
7.
Conclusion
{¶ 19} The judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Pursuant to App.R. 24, Manning is hereby ordered to pay the costs incurred on appeal.
Judgment affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Christine E. Mayle, J.
JUDGE
Myron C. Duhart, J.
JUDGE
Charles E. Sulek, P.J.
CONCUR JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.
8.
