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 11, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

State v. Thompkins

Ohio Court of Appeals

• Citations: 2026 Ohio 812
• Docket Number: C-250277

• Judges: Nestor

• Opinion

• Authorities (0)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Syllabus

ABUSE OF DISCRETION – R.C. 2929.28 – RESTITUTION: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering defendant to pay $6,341.43 in restitution after a two-day restitution hearing because the testimony and evidence presented by the State supported the award, and the trial court's decision to deduct some charges, and not others, was within the trial court's discretion.

Combined Opinion

[Cite as State v. Thompkins, 2026-Ohio-812.]

                IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
            FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
                HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-250277
TRIAL NO. B-2303974
Plaintiff-Appellee, :

vs. :
JUDGMENT ENTRY
CARLOS THOMPKINS, :

     Defendant-Appellant.                  :

      This cause was heard upon the appeal, the record, the briefs, and arguments.
      For the reasons set forth in the Opinion filed this date, the judgment of the trial

court is affirmed.
Further, the court holds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal,
allows no penalty, and orders that costs be taxed under App.R. 24.
The court further orders that (1) a copy of this Judgment with a copy of the
Opinion attached constitutes the mandate, and (2) the mandate be sent to the trial
court for execution under App.R. 27.

To the clerk:
Enter upon the journal of the court on 3/11/2026 per order of the court.

By:_______________________
Administrative Judge
[Cite as State v. Thompkins, 2026-Ohio-812.]

                IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
            FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
                HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-250277
TRIAL NO. B-2303974
Plaintiff-Appellee, :

vs. :
OPINION
CARLOS THOMPKINS, :

     Defendant-Appellant.                  :

Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas

Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: March 11, 2026

Connie Pillich, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and John D. Hill, Jr., Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,

Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, and Joshua A. Thompson,
Assistant Public Defender, for Defendant-Appellant.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

NESTOR, Judge.

   {¶1}     Defendant-appellant Carlos Thompkins challenges the trial court’s

imposition of $6,341.43 in restitution. Because the trial court was within its discretion

to deduct charges that it viewed as legitimate from the total amount of restitution

requested by the State, we overrule Thompkins’s assignment of error and affirm the

trial court’s judgment.

                   I. Factual and Procedural History

   {¶2}     Thompkins pleaded guilty to one count of first-degree misdemeanor

falsification in violation of R.C. 2921.13(A). After a two-day restitution hearing, the

trial court sentenced Thompkins to two years of community control and imposed a

restitution award of $6,341.43. The evidence presented at the restitution hearing is as

follows.

   {¶3}     Thompkins was elected president of the Hughes High School Alumni

Foundation in February 2020. As president, Thompkins had access to two bank

accounts: the Hughes Alumni Scholarship Fund and the Hughes Alumni Foundation

account. The purpose of the Scholarship Fund was to provide scholarships for

graduates of Hughes High School. The Alumni Foundation account was for general

Foundation operating expenses.

   {¶4}     Shortly after Thompkins became president, he began using Foundation

funds for personal expenses. The State identified over 70 fraudulent transactions.

One transaction was from the Scholarship Fund. The rest of the transactions came

from the Alumni Foundation account.

   {¶5}     The State’s chief witness, Erica Ward, offered testimony about these

transactions. Ward served as the Foundation’s treasurer when Thompkins was

president. Thompkins also testified on his own behalf.

                                       3
             OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

   {¶6}    The only transaction that the State identified as fraudulent from the

Scholarship Fund was a $1,500 ATM withdrawal on November 18, 2022. Ward

testified that Thompkins told her that he was withdrawing $1,500 to pay his rent to

avoid eviction. Ward informed Thompkins that he could not use Foundation funds for

that purpose. Thompkins withdrew the cash anyway and promised Ward he would

replace the funds.

   {¶7}    Thompkins offered a different explanation as to why he withdrew

$1,500. According to Thompkins, he withdrew $1,500 not for his own benefit, but to

create a grant for a Hughes alumnus “in distress.” He admitted that the Foundation

board did not approve this grant, but reasoned that as president, he had the authority

to make business decisions.

   {¶8}    The remaining transactions which the State identified as fraudulent

were from the Alumni Foundation account. The State categorized the fraudulent

transactions from this account into three groups: gas, restaurants, and ATM

withdrawals.

   {¶9}    Thompkins testified that he would use Foundation money to put gas in

his car if he “spent the whole day doing foundation business in [his] personal car[.]”

He felt that if he “was driving a lot of places . . . doing foundation business in [his]

personal car” buying his gas “was the least the foundation could do.”

   {¶10} Regarding transactions at restaurants, Thompkins testified that some

purchases, such as a $70.07 transaction at MadTree, were for executive planning

meetings. Four October 2022 transactions totaling $394.80 at Copa Lounge were for

a social event organized by the Foundation. The social event occurred during the week

of a fundraising gala. When asked about multiple other restaurant transactions,

Thompkins testified that he could not remember what they were for.

                                       4
               OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

    {¶11} The third category of transactions was ATM withdrawals. Thompkins

contended that some of the ATM withdrawals were to recompense “volunteers” who

had assisted the Foundation with fundraising efforts by working concessions stands at

Cincinnati Bengals football games.1 Notably, not all the ATM withdrawals took place

in downtown Cincinnati, on days that the Bengals played home games.

    {¶12} Ward testified that Thompkins should have been paying concession

volunteers via check. Thompkins testified that he paid volunteers with cash because

he did not have access to a check book.

    {¶13} In total, the State alleged $6,806.30 in fraudulent transactions. The

sum was supported by certified bank records from Fifth Third Bank, which were

admitted into evidence.

    {¶14} At the end of the restitution hearing, the trial court ordered that

Thompkins pay $6,341.43 in restitution. The trial court reached this award by

subtracting the Copa Lounge and MadTree charges from the total amount requested

by the State. The court deducted those charges because it reasoned that they could

arguably have been for legitimate Foundation purposes.

    {¶15} Thompkins appeals the trial court’s restitution award.

                                   II. Analysis

    {¶16} In one assignment of error, Thompkins argues that the trial court

abused its discretion by ordering restitution in the amount of $6,341.43.

    {¶17} In a misdemeanor case, we review a trial court’s restitution award for

an abuse of discretion. State v. Moore, 2023-Ohio-3318, ¶ 10 (1st Dist.), citing State

1 The Foundation had an arrangement with Aramark, the concession vendor for the Bengals.
Aramark would pay the Foundation for each person it provided to work concession stands. In order
to motivate people to “volunteer,” the Foundation would pay volunteers a portion of what it
received from Aramark.

                                           5
             OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

v. Miles, 2021-Ohio-4581, ¶ 5 (1st Dist.). “‘A trial court abuses its discretion by

ordering restitution in an amount that does not bear a reasonable relationship to the

actual loss suffered.’” Id., quoting In re A.B., 2021-Ohio-4273, ¶ 8 (1st Dist.), citing In

re M.N., 2017-Ohio-7302, ¶ 8 (1st Dist.). Additionally, an abuse of discretion occurs if

the restitution award “is not supported by competent, credible evidence in the record

from which the court can discern the amount of restitution to a reasonable degree of

certainty.” Id., quoting State v. Caldwell, 2023-Ohio-355, ¶ 14 (4th Dist.).

   {¶18} R.C. 2929.28 permits a trial court to impose a restitution award in an

amount based on the victim’s economic loss. State v. Dunn, 2026-Ohio-241, ¶ 15 (1st

Dist.), citing State v. Haskett, 2024-Ohio-5933, ¶ 14 (1st Dist.), citing R.C.

2929.28(A)(1). Economic loss is “‘any economic detriment suffered by a victim as a

direct and proximate result of the commission of an offense.’” Dunn at ¶ 15, quoting

R.C. 2929.01(L).

   {¶19} Thompkins argues that the evidence justifying the trial court’s

deduction of the MadTree and Copa Lounge charges from the restitution award is no

stronger than the evidence indicating that other charges should likewise have been

subtracted. He points to text messages between him and Ward in support of his

argument that other transactions were similarly legitimate.

   {¶20} We refuse to modify or eliminate the trial court’s award. “A trial court

has discretion to order restitution in an appropriate case and may base the amount it

orders on a recommendation of the victim, . . . estimates or receipts indicating the cost

of repairing or replacing property” as long as the amount ordered is not greater than

the economic loss suffered as a result of the offense. State v. Gutherie, 2020-Ohio-

501, ¶ 23 (1st Dist.), quoting State v. Lalain, 2013-Ohio-3093, paragraph one of the

syllabus.

                                        6
             OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

   {¶21} Here, the restitution award ordered by the trial court was less than the

Foundation’s total economic loss. After a two-day restitution hearing, the trial court,

in its discretion, determined that an award of $6,341,43 was appropriate. We cannot

say that the trial court’s decision to subtract the MadTree and Copa Lounge charges,

and not others, was unreasonable or otherwise unsupported by the record. See State

v. McKinney, 2025-Ohio-4826, ¶ 9 (1st Dist.), citing Johnson v. Abdullah, 2021-Ohio-

3304, ¶ 33. Accordingly, we will not disturb the award on appeal.

                              III. Conclusion

   {¶22} The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding $6,341.43 in

restitution. Thompkins’s assignment of error is overruled and the judgment of the

trial court is affirmed.

                                                                Judgment affirmed.

ZAYAS, P.J., and MOORE, J., concur.

                                      7