2022 Ohio 674
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- In 2018 Keith Freeman pleaded guilty to felonious assault and domestic violence and was sentenced to six years imprisonment; the court assessed costs of prosecution and ordered DRC to withhold funds from his prison account to pay those costs.
- At sentencing Freeman was warned that failure to pay or to make timely payments could result in an order to perform community service until the judgment was satisfied.
- In July 2021 Freeman moved for credit against his unpaid court-cost balance by performing community service instead of continuing deductions from his prison account.
- The trial court denied Freeman’s motion without holding a hearing; Freeman appealed, arguing the court was required to hold a hearing under R.C. 2947.23(B).
- The Fourth District reviewed the statutory question de novo and the discretionary aspects for abuse of discretion, then affirmed the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court was required to hold a hearing under R.C. 2947.23(B) before ordering community service (or denying motion to apply community service as credit). | State: No hearing required because the statute mandates a hearing only if the judge has reason to believe the defendant failed to pay or make timely payments; the record gave no such reason. | Freeman: The court erred by not holding a hearing and should permit community service in lieu of further payments (or at least decide after a hearing). | The court held a hearing is mandatory only if the judge has reason to believe the offender failed to pay or make timely payments; here there was no evidence Freeman failed to comply, so no hearing was required and the denial was affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Smith, 131 Ohio St.3d 297 (2012) (construing “shall” in R.C. 2947.23(A) as mandatory notice at sentencing)
- State v. Consilio, 114 Ohio St.3d 295 (2007) (statutory-interpretation review is de novo)
- State v. Lowe, 112 Ohio St.3d 507 (2007) (statutory language applied as written when unambiguous)
- Ohio Civ. Rights Comm. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 99 Ohio St.3d 522 (2003) (interpretive rule that “shall” is ordinarily mandatory)
- State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151 (1980) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- Dorrian v. Scioto Conservancy Dist., 27 Ohio St.2d 102 (1971) (construction of “shall” as mandatory)