State v. Banks, 2017 Ohio 7135

Background

In July 2007 Andre Banks drove impaired, killing one person and injuring three; he pled guilty and was sentenced in February 2009 to 13 years and ordered to pay court costs.
Banks repeatedly challenged his sentence and the imposition of costs in multiple prior appeals; the Tenth District has previously rejected his claims as without merit and/or barred by res judicata.
Banks moved in 2016 for the trial court to waive or suspend court costs, arguing the sentence was void because the court did not state the amount of costs at sentencing and failed to give certain statutory warnings.
The trial court denied relief, noting Banks had already paid the costs; Banks appealed that denial.
Banks relied on R.C. 2947.23(C) (2013 amendment) to argue the court retains jurisdiction to waive or modify costs after sentencing; the court found that amendment postdated Banks’ final judgment and is inapplicable.
The Tenth District affirmed, holding Banks’ cost challenges are barred by res judicata and that trial courts lack jurisdiction to modify costs for judgments final before HB 247’s effective date.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by refusing to re-sentence to comply with R.C. 2947.23(A)(1)(a) and give warnings about unpaid costs	State: the denial was proper because the judgment and costs were final and Banks’ motion was untimely	Banks: failure to state the amount of costs and to give warnings rendered the sentence void and entitled him to re-sentencing	Court: denied — costs challenge is not a void-sentence issue and is barred by res judicata for a final judgment entered in 2009
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object under R.C. 2947.23(A)	State: ineffective-assistance claim is barred and meritless because the underlying costs claim is barred	Banks: counsel should have objected at sentencing to statutory requirements for cost notices	Court: denied — claim is res judicata and not a basis to vacate a final sentence
Whether R.C. 2947.23(C) (2013 amendment) allows post-judgment modification/waiver of costs for sentences final before the amendment	State: the statute does not revive jurisdiction over judgments final before its effective date	Banks: the statute authorizes trial courts to waive/suspend costs at any time thereafter	Court: held R.C. 2947.23(C) does not apply retroactively; trial courts lack jurisdiction to alter final felony judgments imposed before HB 247
Whether a court retaining jurisdiction can correct costs after final judgment as a clerical error or void sentence	State: only void sentences or clerical errors are correctable; costs imposition here is not void	Banks: argues costs imposition defects render sentence void	Court: held costs are civil assessments subject to discretion and do not render the sentence void for post-judgment relief

Key Cases Cited

State v. Jackson, 141 Ohio St.3d 171 (2014) (res judicata bars claims that were or could have been raised on direct appeal)
State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010) (a sentence is void where statutory requirements for post-release control were not satisfied)
State v. Harris, 132 Ohio St.3d 318 (2012) (Fischer principle extended to certain collateral penalties)
State v. Joseph, 125 Ohio St.3d 76 (2010) (costs assessed in criminal cases are civil in nature and subject to judicial discretion)
State v. Raber, 134 Ohio St.3d 350 (2012) (trial courts lack authority to reconsider valid final criminal judgments, except to correct void sentences or clerical errors)
State ex rel. White v. Junkin, 80 Ohio St.3d 335 (1997) (same principle limiting trial-court reconsideration of final judgments)
State ex rel. Cruzado v. Zaleski, 111 Ohio St.3d 353 (2006) (discussing limits on collateral attack and jurisdiction)
State ex rel. Hansen v. Reed, 63 Ohio St.3d 597 (1992) (jurisdictional limits on post-judgment relief)
Manigault v. Ford Motor Co., 96 Ohio St.3d 431 (2002) (appellate courts generally cannot consider evidence dehors the record)