State v. Dunson
2016 Ohio 8365
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- James L. Dunson was convicted of murder and aggravated robbery; the trial court ordered a prison term, court costs and $3,869.10 restitution; no fines were imposed.
- After judgment, Dunson received cost bills totaling about $6,199.10 (plus additional $92 appellate costs) and filed a post‑judgment motion to vacate, stay, or modify costs/restitution or, alternatively, for a manageable payment plan.
- Dunson submitted an affidavit of indigency stating prison wages of $17–$21 per month and proposed a $5 monthly payment plan (over 25% of his average monthly income).
- The trial court summarily denied the motion, reasoning defendant chose the conduct that produced the obligations and that there was no evidence he could not pay now or in the future. No hearing or responsive pleadings were held.
- On appeal the Second District (majority) reversed as to court costs (remanding for consideration of indigency/ability to pay) and affirmed as to restitution (finding no abuse of discretion to deny relief as to restitution payment enforcement).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a post‑judgment motion to waive, suspend, or modify court costs without considering indigency or ability to pay | State: trial court did not abuse discretion; attachment of inmate account and statutory collection procedures permit payment; challenge to attachment not before the court | Dunson: trial court must consider his indigency and limited prison wages; proposed modest payment plan; costs should be waived, stayed, or modified | Reversed in part — trial court abused its discretion by not considering indigency/ability to pay; remanded for reconsideration of court costs taking those factors into account |
| Whether restitution may be modified or stayed after judgment based on inability to pay | State: trial court acted within discretion to deny relief (enforcement limited by prison‑account collection rules) | Dunson: sought waiver/stay or payment modifications due to indigency | Affirmed — court finds no abuse of discretion in denying relief as to restitution; trial court need not stay or modify restitution on this record |
| Whether trial court should consider inmate‑account exemption/collection statutes when assessing collectibility | State: statutory/regulatory attachment rules control collection; challenge belongs in DOC process | Dunson: exemption and indigency rules should inform trial court’s ability‑to‑pay analysis | Majority: statutes and exemption rules are appropriate guidance for trial court when determining collectibility/ability to pay; trial court should consider them on remand (concurring judge dissents on extent of guidance) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Threatt, 108 Ohio St.3d 277 (Ohio 2006) (abuse‑of‑discretion review of trial court decision on waiving court costs for indigent)
- Huffman v. Hair Surgeon, Inc., 19 Ohio St.3d 83 (Ohio 1985) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157 (Ohio 1990) (unreasonable decision lacks sound reasoning process)
- State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (Ohio 1967) (res judicata bars raising issues not raised on direct appeal)