State v. Jones
2013 Ohio 1925
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Jones was indicted in two cases for non-support of dependents and entered diversion in Aug. 2011.
- He failed to appear and was discharged from diversion in Feb. 2012 for nonpayment and absence.
- Capias issued in Mar. 2012; Jones arrested in California and extradited to Ohio.
- In Jun. 2012, Jones pled guilty in both cases to two counts each and restitution was ordered.
- Final dispositions occurred on July 31, 2012, with restitution, costs, and extradition costs set; prior transcripts/judgments not available.
- Appeal challenges costs of extradition, resentencing, restitution amounts, ability-to-pay considerations, and potential ineffective-assistance issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Extradition costs as costs of prosecution | Extradition costs are costs of prosecution under RC 2947.23(A)(1). | Extradition costs should not be treated as restitution to a victim and may be improper under Toler. | Extradition costs may be imposed as costs of prosecution; not restitution; error only if double-charged. |
| Resentencing over objection | Resentencing conducted after diversion violation was proper given willful noncompliance. | Hearing was required to determine ability to pay and willfulness before re-sentencing. | Resentencing affirmed; no hearing required to determine ability-to-pay under the circumstances. |
| restitution calculations within indicted periods | Restitution should reflect arrearages for indicted periods across seven counts. | Court limited restitution to amounts accrued during indicted periods. | Restitution limited to indicted periods but total amounts aligned with PSI figures; overall affirmed on this point. |
| Ability to pay restitution | Court should consider defendant’s ability to pay before ordering substantial restitution. | No error where PSI showed defendant’s employment prospects and education. | Court did consider ability to pay; no abuse of discretion. |
| Ineffective assistance re statute of limitations | Count I may be time-barred; counsel should have moved to dismiss. | Count I within statute because continuing course of conduct; no ineffective assistance. | Count I timely; no ineffective-assistance error. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Toler, 174 Ohio App.3d 335 (3d Dist. 2007) (extradition costs not restitution; costs of prosecution under RC 2947.23(A)(1))
- City of Middleburg Heights v. Quinones, 120 Ohio St.3d 534 (2008) (definition of costs in criminal cases; statutory authorization governs taxed costs)
- State ex rel. Guilbert, 77 Ohio St. 333 (1907) (operative definition and scope of costs in criminal prosecutions)
- State v. Christy, 2004-Ohio-6963 (3d Dist. Wyandot) (costs and restitution framework in Ohio appellate context)