State v. Brammer, 2018 Ohio 3067

Ricky C. Brammer pleaded guilty via a plea agreement to three counts of aggravated trafficking in drugs: two third-degree felonies (Counts I–II) and one first-degree felony (Count III) based on controlled buys and a subsequent search revealing a large quantity of methamphetamine. The State dismissed an earlier indictment in exchange for the plea.
The plea agreement removed major-drug-offender and firearm specifications and the State agreed not to pursue forfeiture of $39,017.18 seized from Brammer’s bank accounts.
At plea and sentencing the court conducted the required Crim.R. 11 colloquy, ordered a PSI, and informed Brammer of a mandatory statutory fine of $20,000 for the first-degree drug trafficking conviction unless he were found indigent/unable to pay.
Brammer filed affidavits asserting indigence and medical inability to be employed; the PSI showed prior disability income and family support, and the PSI author reported lack of remorse and a prior felony-of-violence conviction.
The court sentenced Brammer to concurrent three-year terms on Counts I–II and nine years on Count III (aggregate nine years), and imposed the $20,000 mandatory fine while remitting the remaining $19,017.18 returned after the State declined forfeiture. Brammer appealed, challenging (1) the nine-year sentence and (2) denial of waiver of the mandatory fine.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the nine-year sentence was contrary to law because the trial court failed to properly consider R.C. 2929.11/2929.12	Trial court complied with statutory sentencing framework and considered PSI, statements, purposes/principles, and recidivism/seriousness factors	Brammer contended the court did not properly consider or apply R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 in imposing nine years	Court held sentence was within statutory range and record shows the court considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12; not contrary to law under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)
Whether the trial court erred by refusing to waive the mandatory $20,000 drug fine for indigence/unable-to-pay	State argued the court was required to consider ability to pay and, given return of $39,017.18 and PSI information, Brammer was able to pay	Brammer argued indigent and medically unable to be gainfully employed, so mandatory fine should be waived under R.C. 2929.18/2929.19	Court found no abuse of discretion: trial court considered ability to pay, and because State returned $39,017.18 and PSI showed resources, waiver denied

State v. Marcum, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (Ohio 2016) (standard of appellate review for felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2))
State v. Gipson, 687 N.E.2d 750 (Ohio 1997) (Gipson decision on burden to demonstrate indigency and inability to pay mandatory fines)