The Ohio Court of Appeals recently dismissed an appeal filed by Jonathan Joshua Perez concerning an increase in his restitution amount. The court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the case because the order was not final and appealable. This decision affects Perez, who was previously indicted for grand theft, as he sought to contest the court's decision to raise his restitution from $70,000 to $77,078.
This case highlights the complexities of the legal process surrounding restitution in criminal cases, especially when it involves intervention programs. The court's ruling emphasizes the importance of finality in legal orders before an appeal can be made.
Background
Jonathan Joshua Perez was indicted by a Warren County Grand Jury on March 25, 2024, for grand theft, which is classified as a fourth-degree felony. Following his indictment, Perez sought to enter an intervention-in-lieu-of-conviction (ILC) program, which allows certain offenders to undergo rehabilitation instead of serving a traditional sentence. On May 30, 2024, he filed a motion for ILC, which the court granted on August 14, 2024.
As part of the ILC agreement, Perez changed his plea from not guilty to guilty and accepted several conditions, including the payment of restitution. Initially, he agreed to pay $70,000 to the victim, EssilorLuxottica. However, after a year, he filed a motion to modify the restitution amount, claiming he wanted to determine his ability to pay and to address issues related to insurance reimbursement.
The Ruling
The Ohio Court of Appeals, led by Presiding Judge Robin N. Piper, reviewed Perez's appeal after a restitution hearing held on January 20, 2026. During the hearing, testimony was presented from employees of EssilorLuxottica and from Perez himself. The trial court determined that the actual damages amounted to $77,078 and modified the restitution amount accordingly.
Perez challenged this decision, arguing that the court erred in increasing the restitution amount. However, the court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the appeal because the order modifying the restitution did not constitute a final, appealable order. The judges emphasized that, under Ohio law, a court of appeals only has jurisdiction over final orders that affect substantial rights.
The court stated, "We conclude that the trial court's order denying Yontz's motion to modify the terms of his ILC supervision does not fall into any of these categories and therefore was not a final, appealable order."
As a result of this ruling, the court dismissed Perez's appeal, stating that the modification of his restitution was not a final order that could be appealed. This decision reinforces the legal standard that only final orders can be reviewed by appellate courts.
Impact
The dismissal of Perez's appeal has significant implications for him and others in similar situations. It underscores the limitations individuals face when seeking to contest modifications to their ILC agreements or restitution orders. The ruling also clarifies the standards for what constitutes a final, appealable order in Ohio, which may affect future cases involving restitution and intervention programs.
For individuals involved in ILC programs, this case serves as a reminder that while they may have certain rights, the ability to appeal decisions made by the trial courts regarding their rehabilitation plans and associated financial obligations is limited. This ruling could potentially deter others from pursuing appeals in similar circumstances, knowing that the courts may not have the jurisdiction to hear their cases.
What's Next
As of now, there is no indication that Perez plans to appeal the dismissal of his case to a higher court. Additionally, there are no related cases pending that could further impact the legal landscape surrounding ILC programs and restitution in Ohio. The focus will likely remain on how similar cases are handled in the future, especially concerning the definitions of final and appealable orders.