Jump To

Top Caption Syllabus Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 6, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

State v. Fogle

Ohio Court of Appeals

• Citations: 2026 Ohio 755
• Docket Number: 30521, 30522, 30523

• Judges: Tucker

• Opinion

• Authorities (5)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (3.3K)

• PDF

Syllabus

The trial court did not commit plain error by ordering appellant to pay restitution of $265.92 after her dog bit a neighbor and attacked the neighbor's dog. Judgments affirmed in the three consolidated appeals.

Combined Opinion

[Cite as State v. Fogle, 2026-Ohio-755.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
MONTGOMERY COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO :
: C.A. Nos. 30521, 30522, 30523
Appellee :
: Trial Court Case Nos. CRB 2500293 A;
v. : CRB 2500439; CRB 2500278
:
ELLEN FOGLE : (Criminal Appeal from Municipal Court)
:
Appellant : FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY &
: OPINION

...........

Pursuant to the opinion of this court rendered on March 6, 2026, the judgments of the

trial court are affirmed.

Costs to be paid as stated in App.R. 24.

Pursuant to Ohio App.R. 30(A), the clerk of the court of appeals shall immediately

serve notice of this judgment upon all parties and make a note in the docket of the service.

Additionally, pursuant to App.R. 27, the clerk of the court of appeals shall send a certified

copy of this judgment, which constitutes a mandate, to the clerk of the trial court and note

the service on the appellate docket.

For the court,

MICHAEL L. TUCKER, JUDGE

HUFFMAN, J., and HANSEMAN, J., concur.
OPINION
MONTGOMERY C.A. Nos. 30521, 30522, 30523

GARY C. SCHAENGOLD, Attorney for Appellant
ERIK R. BLAINE, Attorney for Appellee

TUCKER, J.

{¶ 1} Ellen Fogle appeals from her convictions in Vandalia Municipal Court following

guilty pleas in three related misdemeanor cases.

{¶ 2} In Montgomery C.A. No. 30521, Fogle appeals from the judgment convicting

her of three counts of failure to obtain liability insurance for a dangerous dog. In Montgomery

C.A. No. 30522, she appeals from the judgment convicting her of one count of failure to

obtain a dangerous-dog registration certificate. In Montgomery C.A. No. 30523, she appeals

from the judgment convicting her of one count of permitting a dog to run at large.

{¶ 3} Although Fogle filed a notice of appeal in each case and we consolidated the

appeals, her only assignment of error challenges the judgment on appeal in Montgomery

C.A. No. 30523. She contends the trial court committed plain error by ordering restitution

without evidence that the victim suffered any economic loss.

{¶ 4} We conclude that information contained in a presentence investigation report

adequately supported the restitution order. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment on appeal

in Montgomery C.A. No. 30523. We also affirm the judgments on appeal in Montgomery

C.A. Nos. 30521 and 30522 because Fogle has not assigned any error in those cases.

I. Background

{¶ 5} The above-referenced charges stemmed from Fogle’s seven pit bulls escaping

her property and roaming her neighborhood. One of the dogs attacked a neighbor’s dog and

bit the neighbor. Fogle pled guilty to all charges in the three cases, and the trial court

2
sentenced her accordingly. On appeal, she challenges only her sentence relating to the

offense of permitting a dog to run at large which required her to pay the victim restitution of

$265.92.

II. Analysis

{¶ 6} Fogle’s sole assignment of error states:

THE COURT ERRED WHEN IT REQUIRED MS. FOGLE TO PAY

RESTITUTION BECAUSE THERE WAS NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE THAT

ANY ECONOMIC LOSS WAS SUFFERED.

{¶ 7} Fogle concedes that plain-error review applies because she did not contest the

amount of restitution below. She also does not dispute that restitution may be based on a

victim’s request or information found in a presentence investigation report. She nevertheless

contends the trial court plainly erred by ordering restitution absent any testimony or

documentary evidence such as medical bills or veterinary bills establishing the victim’s

economic loss. She also asserts that restitution was improper because the presentence

investigation report failed to explain how the amount was calculated.

{¶ 8} Under R.C. 2929.28(A)(1), the trial court was authorized to order restitution in

the amount of the victim’s economic loss. As Fogle acknowledges, our review is limited by

her failure to object when the trial court ordered restitution. “A defendant who does not

dispute an amount of restitution, request a hearing, or otherwise object waives all but plain

error.” (Citation omitted.) State v. Twitty, 2011-Ohio-4725, ¶ 26 (2d Dist.). Fogle did not

challenge the restitution at issue. Nor did she request a hearing or object to the restitution

order at sentencing. Therefore, we are limited to plain-error review.

{¶ 9} Under Crim.R. 52(B), we have “discretion to correct ‘[p]lain errors or defects

affecting substantial rights’ notwithstanding the accused’s failure to meet [her] obligation to

3
bring those errors to the attention of the trial court.” State v. Rogers, 2015-Ohio-2459, ¶ 22.

Fogle asserts plain error on the grounds that the record lacked evidence of the victim’s

economic loss.

{¶ 10} Upon review, we find Fogle’s assignment of error to be unpersuasive. “[T]o

ensure a lawful award, there must be competent, credible evidence in the record to support

the trial court’s order of restitution ‘to a reasonable degree of certainty.’” State v. Bender,

2005-Ohio-919, ¶ 10 (2d Dist.), quoting State v. Hooks, 135 Ohio App.3d 746,749 (10th Dist.

2000). “The amount of restitution requested should, if necessary, be substantiated through

documentary or testimonial evidence.” Id. at ¶ 10. We have found plain error where a

presentence investigation report lacked sufficient information to determine the victim’s

economic loss with any certainty. See State v. Knox, 2015-Ohio-4198, ¶ 14 (2d Dist.).

{¶ 11} Here the presentence investigation report contained a written report from an

animal control officer who investigated the incident. The report noted that the victim’s dog

had injuries “to the lower portion of his body around the stomach genital area.” The report

also stated that the victim “took his dog to the vet before seeking medical attention for

himself.” A responding police officer likewise noted the victim’s statement that he “needed

to get his dog to the vet.” Finally, the presentence investigation report contained a reference

to the victim’s medical bill being $104.67 and his dog’s veterinary bill being $161.25.

{¶ 12} Although the amount of restitution was not confirmed through the presentation

of testimony or the admission of actual bills, the record was sufficient for the trial court to

determine that the victim’s economic loss totaled $265.92. But even if we believed otherwise,

we would decline to reverse based on plain error. Correcting plain error is discretionary, and

we will reverse a judgment based on plain error only to correct a manifest miscarriage of

justice. State v. Couch, 2025-Ohio-1943, ¶ 26 (2d Dist.).

4
{¶ 13} Here the amount of restitution ordered for the victim’s medical treatment and

his dog’s veterinary care was modest. If Fogle had objected to the lack of testimony or

documentary evidence supporting the notably precise $265.92 figure, the omission likely

could have been cured with evidence confirming the victim’s economic loss. Under similar

circumstances in Couch, we declined to find that a restitution order created a manifest

miscarriage of justice. We would reach the same conclusion here assuming, arguendo, that

the record lacked sufficient information to support the award. For the foregoing reasons, we

overrule Fogle’s assignment of error.

III. Conclusion

{¶ 14} The judgments on appeal in Montgomery C.A. Nos. 30521, 30522, and 30523

are affirmed.

.............

HUFFMAN, J., and HANSEMAN, J., concur.

5