State v. Carriger, 2017 Ohio 1330

Appellant Gregory Carriger pled guilty to one count of aggravated possession of drugs (third-degree felony) on April 20, 2016.
At plea the court informed Carriger the offense carried a maximum $10,000 fine, $5,000 of which was mandatory; on May 26, 2016 the court sentenced him to 24 months and imposed the $5,000 mandatory fine.
Carriger had previously filed an affidavit of indigency (January 27, 2016) to obtain appointed counsel, but did not file an affidavit expressly asserting indigency and inability to pay the mandatory fine prior to sentencing under R.C. 2929.18(B)(1).
The trial court ordered and reviewed a presentence investigation (PSI) that documented Carriger’s age, health, employment history, and financial condition (including employment under the table and medical debt).
Carriger appealed, arguing the court failed to reasonably consider his present and future ability to pay and that his earlier affidavit of indigency should have prevented imposition of the mandatory fine.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Carriger’s January 27, 2016 affidavit for appointed counsel satisfied R.C. 2929.18(B)(1) to avoid the mandatory fine	The State: affidavit for appointed counsel is distinct from an affidavit to avoid a mandatory fine; no proper affidavit was filed before sentencing	Carriger: he filed an affidavit demonstrating indigency before sentencing, so court should not have imposed the mandatory fine	Court: affidavit for appointed counsel is not sufficient; defendant did not file the required affidavit to avoid the mandatory fine, so imposition was lawful
Whether the trial court failed to consider Carriger’s present and future ability to pay as required by R.C. 2929.19(B)(5)	The State: court expressly stated it considered present/future ability and reviewed the PSI to inform that consideration	Carriger: court did not reasonably consider his inability to pay now and future ability is speculative	Court: satisfied—review of the PSI and court’s statements show consideration of present and future ability; future ability supported by age and work history, so imposition was not an abuse of discretion

State v. Gipson, 80 Ohio St.3d 626 (Ohio 1998) (failure to file the statutorily required affidavit before sentencing is alone sufficient to permit imposition of the mandatory fine)
State v. Kelly, 145 Ohio App.3d 277 (12th Dist. 2001) (indigency determination for appointed counsel is distinct from indigency for avoiding financial sanctions; ability to pay counsel upfront differs from ability to pay fines over time)