State v. Kopilchak, 2013 Ohio 5016

Defendant Gregory Kopilchak pled guilty to one count of second-degree burglary (victim present) after breaking into an 86‑year‑old victim’s apartment while intoxicated and stealing multiple items.
As part of the plea, Kopilchak agreed to pay $70 restitution to the victim.
At sentencing the trial court imposed an eight‑year prison term (the statutory maximum for the offense), a $10,000 fine, and three years of mandatory postrelease control.
After sentencing but before appeal, Kopilchak moved to suspend the $10,000 fine on indigency grounds; the trial court granted the motion and waived the fine.
Kopilchak appealed only the fine (arguing the court failed to inquire into his ability to pay) and the imposition of the maximum eight‑year sentence (arguing abuse of discretion/contrary to law).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Trial court imposed $10,000 fine without determining ability to pay	State contended the fine was lawful as imposed at sentencing	Kopilchak argued the court abused its discretion by not investigating indigency/ability to pay	Moot — court waived the fine after sentencing, so assignment of error is moot
Imposition of maximum (8‑year) prison term	State: sentence is within statutory range and consistent with sentencing principles	Kopilchak: maximum term is excessive/abuse of discretion and contrary to law	Affirmed — sentence not clearly and convincingly contrary to law; court considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 factors (criminal history, victim impact, recidivism, substance abuse)

No officially reported appellate decisions with reporter citations were relied upon in this opinion.