State v. Cotto
2019 Ohio 985
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Defendant Javier B. Cotto pleaded guilty to amended count of first-degree drug trafficking (R.C. 2925.03(A)(2)) with a one-year firearm specification; remaining counts were nolled.
- Prior to sentencing the court had appointed counsel after finding Cotto indigent for purposes of counsel.
- Cotto filed a timely affidavit asserting indigency and inability to pay the mandatory fine before sentencing.
- At sentencing the court considered the presentence investigation report, found the trafficking was profit-motivated, and imposed seven years’ imprisonment (six years for the drug offense, one year for the firearm spec) plus a $10,000 mandatory fine.
- Cotto appealed, arguing the trial court erred by imposing the mandatory fine despite his indigency affidavit and prior indigency finding for appointed counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by imposing the mandatory fine despite a pre-sentencing affidavit of indigency | State: Court properly imposed mandatory fine after considering ability to pay and PSI | Cotto: Having been found indigent and filing an affidavit, he should not be required to pay the mandatory fine | Court: No error — filing an affidavit does not automatically waive the fine; court considered ability to pay and did not abuse discretion |
| Whether a finding of indigency for appointed counsel bars imposition of a mandatory fine | State: Indigency for counsel is distinct from inability to pay fines | Cotto: Prior indigency finding should apply to fines | Court: Distinct inquiries; prior indigency for counsel is not dispositive for fines |
| What showing is required to avoid a mandatory fine where an affidavit of indigency is filed | State: Defendant must affirmatively demonstrate inability to pay; court may rely on PSI and other evidence | Cotto: Mental illness, newborn dependent, and future employment difficulty make payment unrealistic | Court: Defendant’s assertions insufficient; burden to prove indigency and inability to pay not met |
| Standard of appellate review for imposition of mandatory fines | State: Trial court has discretion; review for abuse of discretion and that sentence not contrary to law | Cotto: Imposition contrary to law due to indigency | Court: Affirmed abuse-of-discretion framework; fine not contrary to law |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gipson, 80 Ohio St.3d 626 (1998) (defendant who files affidavit of indigency is not automatically entitled to waiver of mandatory fine; must affirmatively demonstrate inability to pay)
- State v. Johnson, 107 Ohio App.3d 723 (1996) (distinguishing indigency for appointed counsel from indigency for fines)
- State v. Powell, 78 Ohio App.3d 784 (1992) (same distinction between counsel-indigency and fine-indigency)
- State v. Martin, 140 Ohio App.3d 326 (2000) (no specific factors required on record when court considers defendant’s ability to pay; reliance on PSI appropriate)