State v. Babyak
2020 Ohio 325
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Alexander Babyak was convicted of robbery and kidnapping and sentenced to 18 years in 2010; his convictions were initially affirmed on appeal.
- A later postconviction challenge led this court to reverse and remand because the trial court failed to address postrelease control; on remand the trial court held a hearing, corrected postrelease control, and ordered Babyak to pay court costs.
- Babyak filed a pro se post-sentencing motion under R.C. 2947.23(C) asking the trial court to waive or stay court costs, arguing the court should consider his present/future ability to pay and that the costs were uncollectible.
- The trial court denied the motion in a one-line entry without a hearing or explanation.
- The Twelfth District affirmed: the majority held the statute does not require the court to make findings or consider ability to pay when ruling on a post-sentencing waiver motion and found the record showed Babyak should be able to pay; a dissent would have remanded for explanation and applied an indigency standard.
- The opinion notes the Ohio Supreme Court was considering related issues (State v. Taylor) and cites governing precedent that courts must impose costs regardless of indigency but may waive them in limited circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Babyak) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial court must consider a defendant's present and future ability to pay when ruling on a post-sentencing motion to waive costs under R.C. 2947.23(C) | Trial court must consider ability to pay before denying waiver | Statute does not require findings or consideration of ability to pay; waiver is discretionary | Majority: No statutory requirement to consider or make findings; denial not an abuse of discretion given record; Dissent: trial court should consider indigency and provide reasons (would remand) |
| Whether the court costs were uncollectible so as to require waiver (R.C. 2303.23 argument) | Costs are uncollectible and should be waived or stayed | Record shows Babyak has work history and in-prison work, so costs are collectible | Majority: Costs are not uncollectible and trial court acted within discretion to deny waiver; Dissent: absence of record explanation warrants remand for consideration |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. White, 103 Ohio St.3d 580 (court may assess court costs against a defendant despite indigency)
- State v. Clevenger, 114 Ohio St.3d 258 (defendant's financial status is irrelevant to initial imposition of court costs)
- AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157 (abuse-of-discretion review standard explanation)