Serving Lucas, Ottawa, Sandusky and Wood Counties
News Editor
news@presspublications.com
The method used by the Wood County Common Pleas Court to determine the value of catalytic converters in a theft case was correct, an appeals court has ruled.
The ruling by the Ohio Sixth District Court of Appeals upholds an October 2023 decision by the common pleas court which found Scot J. Pozzanghera guilty of one count of fifth-degree theft and imposed a three-year sentence of community control.
He was also ordered to pay restitution of $214.15.
The thefts occurred at the Tracy Creek apartments where, according to court records, two catalytic converters were reported stolen. Pozzanghera initially entered a plea of not guilty but agreed to a guilty plea when the prosecution agreed to drop one charge.
If the matter had proceeded to trial, the investigating police officer would have testified the value of the catalytic converters exceeded $1,000. In his plea agreement, Pozzanghera acknowledged that by entering a guilty plea he was stipulating the prosecution’s statements were true.
In his appeal, Pozzanghera argued that although he stipulated to the prosecution’s statement of facts regarding the value of the catalytic converters, the restitution amount awarded at sentencing undermines his guilty plea.
However, the appeals court ruled a trial court’s restitution determination in a theft case is not restricted to a value that corresponds to the level on which the offense was predicated.
“In this case, the State proffered at the plea hearing that the value of the property stolen, i.e. the catalytic converters, exceeded $1,000. By entering a plea of guilty, appellant conceded to the state’s recitation of facts, which included that the value of the property stolen, exceeded $1,000. The trial court then, following a hearing that the actual economic loss for purpose of determining restitution was $214.15, and ordered that restitution be paid in that amount.
“When queried, appellant did not dispute the statement of facts and the court, upon advising appellant of his rights, accepted his guilty plea.”
