State v. Copeland
2016 Ohio 7797
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Defendant Joseph Copeland pled guilty to aggravated burglary, was sentenced to five years, and court costs were imposed; he did not appeal the conviction.
- Nine months after sentencing Copeland moved to vacate or remit court costs, or alternatively to stay payment until his release, alleging: the court failed to inform him of costs at sentencing and he earns only $17/month in prison so cannot pay.
- The trial court denied the motion, citing the sentencing video confirming costs and Ohio Adm.Code 5120-5-03 allowing withdrawal from inmate accounts while leaving $25 for inmate expenditures.
- On appeal the Second District questioned whether the trial court had to consider ability to pay when ruling on a post-judgment waiver/stay and invited supplemental briefing; the State responded, Copeland did not.
- The panel majority held the trial court abused its discretion by relying solely on the administrative collection rule and remanded for consideration of Copeland’s present and future ability to pay; the opinion discusses statutory authority for waiver and possible conflicts between prison collection procedures and exemption statutes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Copeland) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial court must consider a defendant’s present/future ability to pay when ruling on a post-judgment motion to waive, suspend, or modify court costs | No statutory requirement to perform an ability-to-pay analysis; collection via inmate account is authorized by statute/regulation | Trial court must consider present and future ability to pay before denying waiver or stay | Trial court should consider ability to pay on post-judgment motions; denial reversed and remanded for that analysis |
| Whether Ohio Adm.Code 5120-5-03 alone can justify denial of a waiver/stay because it authorizes collection from inmate accounts (leaving $25) | The administrative rule and R.C. 5120.133 authorize deductions from inmate accounts and support denial | Reliance solely on the administrative rule is insufficient; collection procedures are not dispositive of waiver/modification decisions | Adm.Code is relevant but not dispositive; trial court erred by relying only on it |
| Whether inmates’ prison-account funds are exempt from attachment under Ohio exemption law (R.C. 2329.66) and thus affect ability to pay | Collection statutes permit deductions; no record showing exemptions were asserted or ODRC noncompliance | Exemption statute may apply; trial court must consider whether funds are exempt from attachment before denying relief | Record undeveloped; trial court should assess applicability of exemption statutes on remand |
| Whether trial court’s summary denial without findings was an abuse of discretion | Denial can be reasonable where statutes authorize collection and no exemption claim raised | Summary denial without findings prevents meaningful appellate review; low inmate wages suggest indigency | Court reversed remand; need factual findings and explanation to permit review |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. White, 103 Ohio St.3d 580 (recognizing statutory requirement to assess costs and that collection from indigent defendants is permissive)
- State v. Threatt, 108 Ohio St.3d 277 (noting waiver decision reviewed for abuse of discretion and discussing R.C. 5120.133 as a collection method)
- State v. Joseph, 125 Ohio St.3d 76 (confirming courts may waive payment of costs)