State v. Hunter
2015 Ohio 4180
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- In Feb 2013 Stevan Hunter pled guilty to drug trafficking; the court imposed two-year community control but did not orally announce court costs at sentencing; the written entry ordered payment of “amount equal to the costs of this prosecution.”
- Hunter twice violated community control; after the second violation (Dec 2013) he received a three-year prison term and the court ordered costs for that violation proceeding.
- In Oct 2014 Hunter filed a motion to “vacate/waive” costs and submitted an affidavit of indigency; the trial court granted the motion and waived court costs over the state’s objection.
- The state appealed, arguing (1) res judicata because Hunter failed to request waiver at sentencing, and (2) lack of jurisdiction to waive costs because R.C. 2947.23(C) authorizing post-sentencing waivers became effective the day after Hunter was sentenced (thus any reliance would be retroactive).
- The state later withdrew the res judicata argument (and conceded the court failed to orally advise Hunter of costs at sentencing), but maintained the court lacked jurisdiction to apply the post‑effective amendment to R.C. 2947.23(C) to a sentence entered a day earlier.
- The trial court’s waiver of mandatory fines was uncontestedly erroneous because R.C. 2929.18(B)(1) requires an affidavit of indigency before sentencing to waive mandatory fines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court had jurisdiction to waive court costs post-sentencing under amended R.C. 2947.23(C) | State: statute effective one day after sentencing; applying it would be retroactive and impermissible | Hunter: statute authorizes waiver “at any time thereafter”; he sought waiver after statute’s effective date so jurisdiction exists | Court: statute is prospective; permitting a post‑effective filing does not retroactively upset settled expectations — trial court had jurisdiction to consider waiver |
| Whether Hunter’s failure to request cost waiver at sentencing is res judicata | State: earlier precedent (Threatt, Clevenger) barred such post-sentencing challenges | Hunter: relied on amended statute to seek waiver after sentencing | Court: State withdrew res judicata claim; court explains prior failure to appeal preserves res judicata for sentencing advisals, but Hunter may still seek waiver under R.C. 2947.23(C) after its effective date |
| Whether failure to orally advise defendant of costs at sentencing renders costs void | State: conceded trial court failed to advise per Crim.R. 43(A) and Joseph | Hunter: did not file direct appeal to challenge sentencing error; sought waiver later | Court: the failure renders costs voidable, not void; because Hunter did not pursue direct appeal the sentencing-advice error is res judicata and does not invalidate costs; but this does not preclude seeking waiver under amended statute |
| Whether trial court could waive mandatory fines without pre-sentencing indigency affidavit | State: such waiver is unauthorized without R.C. 2929.18(B)(1) affidavit before sentencing | Hunter: conceded error | Court: waiver of mandatory fines was improper; that portion of the waiver is reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Threatt, 108 Ohio St.3d 277 (indigent defendant must move for waiver of costs at sentencing to preserve issue)
- State v. Clevenger, 114 Ohio St.3d 258 (trial court may waive previously imposed costs only with statutory authority and if moved at sentencing)
- State v. Joseph, 125 Ohio St.3d 76 (failure to advise defendant of costs at sentencing is error that renders costs voidable, not void)
- State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (claims are res judicata if raised or could have been raised previously)
- Van Fossen v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., 36 Ohio St.3d 100 (statutes are presumptively prospective absent express retroactivity)