Legal Opinion

State v. Bartholomew

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided August 19, 2008No. 2007-1462PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLanzinger, J.

{¶ 1} In this case we are asked to determine whether R.C. 2929.18(A)(1) permits a trial court to order a criminal defendant to pay restitution to Ohio’s reparations fund. We hold that it does.

Background

{¶ 2} Defendant-appellee, Charles W. Bartholomew, pleaded guilty to one count of rape of a minor under 13 years of age in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b). The trial court sentenced him to a prison term of ten years, imposed court costs, and ordered him to “pay $426.00 restitution to the Attorney General’s Victims of Crime [fund] for reimbursement to the victim” for counseling expenses.…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Rice v. CertainTeed Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1999
  2. State v. KreischerOhio Supreme Court · 2006
  3. Cleveland Mobile Radio Sales, Inc. v. Verizon WirelessOhio Supreme Court · 2007
  4. State v. DidionOhio Court of Appeals · 2007
  5. Rosette v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 2005

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. State v. JohnsonOhio Court of Appeals · 2012
  2. State v. ColonOhio Court of Appeals · 2010
  3. State v. HarrisOhio Court of Appeals · 2015
  4. State v. MaurerOhio Court of Appeals · 2016
  5. State v. KiserOhio Court of Appeals · 2011

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API