State v. Jennings
2012 Ohio 1229
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Jennings pled guilty to two counts of grand theft of a motor vehicle, both fourth-degree felonies, in 2009.
- He was sentenced to Community Control sanctions for up to five years on July 23, 2009.
- On March 10, 2011, the trial court revoked community control for violations.
- He was sentenced to 12 and 11 months to be served concurrently; 118 days credited; term completed.
- Jennings appealed; counsel filed an Anders brief; Jennings filed a pro se brief seeking independent review.
- Court addressed multiple proposed errors and ultimately affirmed, focusing on a lack of merit in most challenges and addressing the court-cost issue as the sole potentially viable issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court abused its discretion in ordering costs. | Jennings argues costs were improper under statutes. | State contends costs are mandatory; waiver and indigence procedures not required for imposition. | No reversible error; costs were properly imposed or waived only if applicable under law. |
| Whether probation-revocation due process/to written notice issues have merit. | Jennings asserts due process violations due to lack of timely notice/written charges. | State contends notices and procedures complied with law. | Issues moot due to completed sentence; no merit found. |
| Whether the findings of probation violation were against the weight of the evidence. | Jennings contends he did not plead guilty to probation violations. | State argues evidence supports violation findings. | Moot; noarguable merit found in light of other conclusions. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lux, 2012-Ohio-112 (2d Dist. Miami No. 2010 CA 30, 2012-Ohio-112) (court costs governed by 2947.23; not a financial sanction under 2929.19)
- State v. White, 2004-Ohio-5989 (Ohio Sup. Ct.) (mandatory imposition of court costs; indigence waivers possible but not required)
- State v. Joseph, 2010-Ohio-954 (Ohio Sup. Ct.) (waiver of court costs may be sought at sentencing; court not required to waive)
- State v. Threatt, 2006-Ohio-905 (Ohio Sup. Ct.) (waiver of court-cost payment must be sought at sentencing; standard of review on appeal)
- State v. Stutz, 2011-Ohio-5210 (2d Dist. Montgomery No. 24489) (appellate review of denial of waiver rests on abuse of discretion)
- Columbus v. Kiner, 2011-Ohio-6462 () (absence of statutory standards for waivers; costs may be waived in collection)
- State v. Smith, 2007-Ohio-6552 (3d Dist. Allen No. 1-07-32) (distinguishes court costs from financial sanctions in 2929 proceedings)