2011 Ohio 4767
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Appellant Larry D. Haught, Jr. was convicted in Marietta Municipal Court of driving under OVI suspension in violation of R.C. 4510.14.
- He was sentenced to sixty days in jail, plus fines, costs, and a ten-day license suspension.
- The trial court imposed court costs but did not notify the defendant of the potential for community service under R.C. 2947.23(A)(1)(a).
- Appellant timely appealed, challenging the court’s failure to provide the required R.C. 2947.23 notifications and related consequences.
- The State conceded the notification error, but argued the issue was not ripe for review; the court nonetheless remanded for re-sentencing on costs.
- The appellate court vacated the costs portion and remanded for limited re-sentencing consistent with the notice requirements, deeming the remaining issues moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to notify on community service breached 2947.23 | Haught argues the court’s cost imposition violated 2947.23(A)(1)(a)-(b). | Haught contends the error is not ripe for review as no prejudice shown. | Costs vacated; remanded for limited re-sentencing with proper 2947.23 notice. |
| Ineffective assistance due to failure to object to costs | State contends ineffective assistance arguments are moot after notice failure. | Haught asserts counsel should have objected to improper notification. | Moot, as assignment 1 governs disposition. |
| Plain error from lack of notification on costs | State relies on the same notice defect to support plain-error claim. | Haught argues defective notification warrants reversal even absent trial counsel objection. | Moot for the same reason as above; remand limited to costs issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Moss, 186 Ohio App.3d 787 (2010-Ohio-1135) (notifications under R.C. 2947.23 are mandatory and reviewable)
- State v. Burns, 2009-Ohio-878 (Gallia App. No. 08CA2-3, 2009) (ineffective-assistance claim moot when only notice issue is dispositive)
- State v. Dansby, 2009-Ohio-2975 (Tuscarawas App. No. 08AP060047, 2009) (discussed notice requirements under 2947.23)
- State v. Cardamone, 2011-Ohio-818 (Cuyahoga App. No. 94405, 2011) (reiterates 2947.23 notice mandates)