[Cite as State v. Jordan,
2025-Ohio-64.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
CLERMONT COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, :
Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2024-05-036
: OPINION
- vs - 1/13/2025
:
RYAN JORDAN, :
Appellant. :
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM CLERMONT COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Case No. 2022 CR 0860
Mark J. Tekulve, Clermont County Prosecuting Attorney, and Nick Horton, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
W. Stephen Haynes, Clermont County Public Defender, and Robert F. Benintendi,
Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
BYRNE, P.J.
{¶ 1} Ryan Jordan appeals from the decision of the Clermont County Court of
Common Pleas, which revoked community control and imposed a prison sentence on
one count of felony theft. For the reasons described below, we affirm.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
Clermont CA2024-05-036
{¶ 2} In September 2022, a Clermont County grand jury indicted Jordan on one
count of theft, a felony of the first degree ("Count One"), and one count of
telecommunications fraud, a felony of the first degree ("Count Two"). According to the bill
of particulars, between November 2020 and August 2021, Jordan assumed the "fake role"
as a "go-between" for the victim and a fictitious female. Through this deception, Jordan
stole over $1.5 million from the victim by manipulating the victim into sending him money.
{¶ 3} In September 2023, the state and Jordan entered into a negotiated plea
agreement. Jordan agreed to enter a plea of guilty to Count One, theft, modified to a
felony of the second degree. In return, the state agreed to dismiss Count Two. The
parties further agreed on a restitution amount of $1,568,687.16. The state further agreed
that it would not object to the court overcoming the presumption of a prison term.
{¶ 4} The matter proceeded to a plea and sentencing hearing. After engaging
Jordan in a Crim.R. 11 plea colloquy, the court found that Jordan was entering his plea
knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, and accepted his plea. The court thereafter found
Jordan guilty.
{¶ 5} The court imposed a sentence of community control for five years. The
court also ordered restitution in the amount of $1,568,687.16 and indicated that Jordan
would need to pay that amount back during his five years on community control. The
court commented as follows:
So I'm going to put you on probation five years. It's a lot of
restitution to pay back. So make sure that's -- the most
important thing is to try to make the victim whole financially.
That's my goal here. If I was interested in sending you to
prison, I would not overcome the presumption. I'd just send
you to prison. So take that for what it is.
Hopefully, don't give me a reason that I have to send you to
prison. Okay? So make sure you make payments and try to
make this thing right.
-2-
Clermont CA2024-05-036
{¶ 6} The court indicated its awareness that Jordan was working part time and
asked if there was any reason why he could not be employed full time. Jordan stated that
there was not. The court therefore ordered Jordan to be employed full time and indicated
that there was a court program available to help him find full-time employment if needed.
{¶ 7} In January 2024, a Clermont County probation officer filed an affidavit
alleging a community control violation. The officer averred that Jordan violated probation
by failing to pay a supervision fee of $50 per month, restitution of $1,568,687.16, and all
costs of prosecution. The officer averred that Jordan had been placed on a payment plan
commencing September 22, 2023 and was to pay $26,948.68 each month. But since
that date, Jordan had paid nothing.
{¶ 8} In February 2024, Jordan appeared before the court and admitted to the
community control violation. The court found him guilty of the violation and continued the
matter for sentencing.
{¶ 9} In April 2024, the court held a sentencing hearing. The record reflects that
Jordan had an apparent medical issue on the first day of the hearing, just as the court
was imposing sentence. The sentencing hearing was then completed two days later. At
sentencing, the court recounted that Jordan had made no payments since he was
sentenced in September 2023. The court stated that Jordan had appeared in February
and admitted to the violation and the matter was continued for sentencing "with the
anticipation that Mr. Jordan would come back to the table with substantial payment and a
payment plan in hand."
{¶ 10} In mitigation, Jordan's attorney stated that he had "serious issues with
paying" and "significant challenges." Counsel stated that Jordan was working 15 hours
a week at AT&T and was living with his mother. He was currently applying for SSI and
waiting on the results. Jordan's attorney represented that he had paid $300 that day,
-3-
Clermont CA2024-05-036
which Jordan's mother had informed counsel was "the absolute most that they could pay."
{¶ 11} In allocution, Jordan apologized, stated that he was sick and was "trying my
best to get my life back on track." Jordan stated that epilepsy and anxiety had resulted
in him not being able to leave his house.
{¶ 12} The court asked Jordan what he did with the $1.5 million that he stole.
Jordan did not answer the court's question but instead stated:
I'm going through a drug phase, like, really bad, and I was just
out with the wrong people. I was making the wrong decisions
that I shouldn't have been making. I was raised way better
than how I acted. Was raised a hundred times better than
that.
{¶ 13} The court then asked Jordan about his current employment. Jordan stated
he was working at AT&T as a retail sales representative and added that before he got sick
he was "one of the highest retail sales rep [sic] for my entire company." Jordan stated he
made $13 an hour and was working between 15 to 25 hours per week and that he could
not "handle" working more than that.
{¶ 14} The court noted that Jordan had earned income and questioned how he
could possibly have had no discretionary income in the six months since sentencing that
he could have paid towards restitution. The court stated its belief that Jordan had
manipulated the court when he was sentenced to community control and was still
attempting to manipulate the court, including by paying $300 on the day of the hearing.
{¶ 15} The court heard testimony from Jordan's probation officer, who recounted
the facts surrounding Jordan's failure to make any payments after he was placed on
community control. The probation officer detailed his repeated efforts to have Jordan
make a payment, without success.
{¶ 16} The court found that the facts established an unwillingness to pay rather
than an inability to pay. The court found that community control was no longer consistent
-4-
Clermont CA2024-05-036
with the purposes and principles of sentencing. The court revoked community control
and imposed a prison term of four years.
{¶ 17} Jordan appealed, raising one assignment of error.
II. Law and Analysis
{¶ 18} Jordan's sole assignment of error states:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REVOKING APPELLANT'S
COMMUNITY CONTROL AND IMPOSING A PRISON
TERM.
{¶ 19} Jordan argues that the record establishes that he was "unable to pay the
required amount of restitution" and that the court improperly characterized him as
unwilling to pay. He argues that the court ordered him to pay restitution in the amount of
$26,948.68 per month and that this obligation was "untenable" given that he was only
working part-time at a rate of $13 an hour. Jordan argues that his non-payment was not
willful but was instead "impossible" due to his limited income and his medical condition.
A. Standard of Review
{¶ 20} We review a court's decision to revoke community control under the abuse
of discretion standard. State v. Smith, 2024-Ohio-2854, ¶ 15 (12th Dist.). The term abuse
of discretion implies that the trial court's attitude was unreasonable, arbitrary, or
unconscionable.
Id.
B. Applicable Law
{¶ 21} A trial court may revoke community control and impose a prison term for an
offender's failure to pay, however the court must make an inquiry into "the reasons for the
failure to pay." State v. Chambers, 2003-Ohio-5991, ¶ 8 (12th Dist.), citing Bearden v.
Georgia,
461 U.S. 660 (1983). It is unconstitutional to revoke community control and
imprison an indigent offender where the record shows that the only reason for
nonpayment is the inability to pay. Id. at ¶ 9. However, a court may imprison the offender
-5-
Clermont CA2024-05-036
if the record shows that the offender refused to pay or failed to make sufficient bona fide
efforts to acquire the resources to pay. Id. at ¶ 8. "Thus, the court must consider evidence
of the probationer's ability to pay and there must be evidence that the failure to pay was
willful or intentional." Id. at ¶ 9.
C. Analysis
{¶ 22} The record supports the trial court's finding that Jordan willfully and
intentionally refused to pay ordered restitution. Jordan failed to make a single payment
after he was sentenced in September 2023. He made no payments despite the fact that
he was working part time and living at home with his mother. He made no payments
despite his probation officer repeatedly attempting to get him to make payments. The first
time he made a payment was the date of his sentencing hearing, which the court
construed as Jordan's attempt to manipulate the court.
{¶ 23} On appeal, Jordan claims that it was "impossible" for him to pay because
his monthly restitution order far exceeded what he could possibly pay based on his
income or claimed resources. However, the court was very clear in that it simply expected
Jordan to pay something towards his restitution order. Jordan paid nothing until the day
of sentencing. Moreover, Jordan's medical issues do not establish an inability to pay.
The record is clear that Jordan was working part-time, despite his claimed medical issues.
{¶ 24} The record amply supports the trial court's conclusion that this was a willful
and intentional failure to pay rather than an inability to pay. Accordingly, the court did not
abuse its discretion in ordering Jordan to prison for his community control violation. We
overrule Jordan's sole assignment of error.
{¶ 25} Judgment affirmed.
HENDRICKSON and PIPER, JJ., concur.
-6-
