COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT
 
                       COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
 
                           NO. 82963
 
 
STATE OF OHIO                     :
                                  :
     Plaintiff-Appellee           :    JOURNAL ENTRY
                                  :
      -VS-                        :         AND
                                  :
JOSE A. REYES                     :       OPINION
                                  :
     Defendant-Appellant          :
 
 
Date of Announcement
  of Decision:                    MAY 27, 2004
 
Character of Proceeding:          Criminal appeal from
                                  Court of Common Pleas
                                  Case No. CR-424471
 
 
Judgment:                         Vacated and remanded.
 
Date of Journalization:
 
Appearances:
 
For Plaintiff-Appellee:           WILLIAM D. MASON
                                  Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
                                  JOSE TORRES-RAMIREZ, Assistant
                                  Prosecuting Attorney
                                  1200 Ontario Street
                                  Cleveland, Ohio 44113
 
For Defendant-Appellant:          ROBERT L. TOBIK
                                  Cuyahoga County Public Defender
                                  PAUL KUZMINS, Assistant Public
                                  Defender
                                  100 Lakeside Place
                                  1200 West Third Street
                                  Cleveland, Ohio 44113
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                               -2-
 
 
 
JAMES J. SWEENEY, J.:
 
     Defendant-appellant Jose A. Reyes appeals from the trial
 
court's May 21, 2003 judgment entry that modified defendant's
 
previously imposed sentence by increasing the amount of restitution
 
from $100 to $21,837.64. Defendant has raised four assignments of
 
error challenging that restitution order, which are attached as
 
Appendix A. The State concedes to the validity of the assigned
 
errors. Accordingly, the first assignment of error is sustained,
 
and the May 21, 2003 restitution order is vacated and this matter
 
is remanded with instructions to impose the original sentence. The
 
remaining assignments of error are overruled as moot. App.R.
 
12(A)(1)(c).
 
     Judgment vacated and remanded.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                  -3-
 
     It is ordered that appellant recover of appellee his costs
 
herein taxed.
 
     The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
 
     It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court
 
directing the Court of Common Pleas to carry this judgment into
 
execution.
 
     A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate
 
pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
 
ANN DYKE, P.J., and
 
DIANE KARPINSKI, J., CONCUR.
 
 
 
                                         JAMES J. SWEENEY
                                              JUDGE
 
 
 
 
N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court's decision. See App.R.
22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 22. This decision will be journalized
and will become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App.R.
22(E) unless a motion for reconsideration with supporting brief, per
App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days of the announcement of the
court's decision. The time period for review by the Supreme Court of
Ohio shall begin to run upon the journalization of this court's
announcement of decision by the clerk per App.R. 22(E). See, also,
S.Ct.Prac.R. 112, Section 2(A)(1).
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                               -4-
 
 
 
                            APPENDIX A
 
    "I. The trial court erred in ordering restitution to Darrin
Hutchinson and Robert Williams where the appellant was not
originally ordered to pay restitution to them at the sentencing
hearing.
 
    "II. The trial court erred in its determination of the
restitution amount owed to Douglas Robinson when it considered more
than the `victim's economic loss.'
 
    "III. The trial court erred in ordering restitution above and
beyond the amounts actually incurred by the individual victims.
 
    "IV. The trial court erred in ordering Mr. Reyes to pay
restitution without considering his ability to pay as required by
R.C. 2929.19(B)(6).
 
.