State v. Ivey
2021 Ohio 2138
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Appellant Melvin Ivey pleaded no contest to one count of felonious assault on August 27, 2019; the trial court ordered a presentence investigation (PSI).
- On September 11, 2019 the court sentenced Ivey to four years in prison and ordered him to pay “the costs of prosecution” and other discretionary costs (supervision, confinement, assigned counsel) in its entry.
- The sentencing entry included language finding the defendant “has, or reasonably may be expected to have, the means to pay” applicable costs; the court stated it had reviewed the PSI but did not make an on-the-record detailed ability-to-pay finding.
- Ivey argued on appeal the trial court erred by ordering unspecified costs (including court‑appointed counsel fees) without first determining his ability to pay.
- The State argued the PSI and the court’s statement that it reviewed the PSI provided clear and convincing evidence that Ivey has or will have the ability to pay the discretionary costs.
- The Sixth District affirmed, holding the PSI review and its contents supplied sufficient evidence to support the court’s finding that Ivey has or may reasonably be expected to have the ability to pay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court improperly imposed discretionary court costs (supervision, confinement, assigned counsel) without first determining defendant's ability to pay | State: The record, including the PSI and the court's statement that it reviewed the PSI, plainly supports a finding that Ivey has or will have the means to pay | Ivey: Court failed to make on-the-record ability-to-pay findings and there is no evidence the court considered his present or future ability to pay | Affirmed. The court's statement that it reviewed the PSI plus PSI contents provided clear and convincing evidence supporting the ability-to-pay finding; imposition of costs not contrary to law |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Collins, 41 N.E.3d 899 (12th Dist.) (appellate court may not modify a financial sanction unless it finds by clear and convincing evidence that the sanction is unsupported by the record or contrary to law)