State v. Lantz
2019 Ohio 3307
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- David A. Lantz pleaded guilty to multiple counts of pandering sexually oriented material/obscenity involving a minor and received a prison term and post-release control; the trial court classified him a Tier II sex offender.
- At sentencing the court told Lantz to pay "the costs of this action;" the written judgment entry specified "all prosecution costs, and any fees permitted pursuant to O.R.C. § 2929.18(A)(4)."
- A subsequent costs-due notice and docket entries reflected assessed costs totaling $1,447.47, which included a separate entry approving $894 in court-appointed counsel fees.
- Lantz appealed solely as to costs, arguing (1) the court imposed additional costs in the written judgment outside his presence (Crim.R. 43(A)) and (2) the court failed to determine his present and future ability to pay as required before imposing financial sanctions under R.C. 2929.19(B)(5).
- The state responded that (a) prosecution costs and fees under R.C. 2929.18(A)(4) are mandatory and included in "costs of this action," and (b) the record (PSI) provided information bearing on ability to pay; it also noted the judgment entry did not actually purport to impose appointed-counsel, supervision, or confinement costs.
- The Sixth District analyzed which costs are mandatory, whether the oral sentence matched the judgment entry, and whether the court was required to consider ability to pay before imposing the specific statutory fees.
Issues
| Issue | Lantz's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the written judgment imposed new costs/fees outside Lantz's presence in violation of Crim.R. 43(A) | Judgment added unspecified costs/fees not announced at sentencing, denying opportunity to object/seek waiver | "Costs of this action" included mandatory prosecution costs and fees under R.C. 2929.18(A)(4); no new unauthorized costs were imposed | No reversible error; "costs of this action" encompassed mandatory prosecution costs and statutory fees, so notice was adequate and any discrepancy was harmless |
| Whether prosecution costs required consideration of ability to pay before imposition | Court failed to find present/future ability to pay for costs | Prosecution costs under R.C. 2947.23 are mandatory and not conditioned on ability to pay (waiver available for indigency) | Prosecution costs are mandatory; ability-to-pay finding not required to impose them; defendant may seek waiver post‑sentence |
| Whether fees "permitted by" R.C. 2929.18(A)(4) required an ability-to-pay inquiry before imposition | Court should have considered ability to pay before imposing §2929.18(A)(4) fees | Fees referenced are actually mandatory "state" costs (e.g., $30 reparations/indigent defense funds) required by other statutes and may only be waived for indigency | Fees under §2929.18(A)(4) (as implemented by related statutes) are mandatory court costs; ability-to-pay analysis is not a prerequisite to imposition though waiver for indigency remains available |
| Whether court-appointed counsel fees were properly imposed | Appointed-counsel fees were included in costs without being announced or supported by ability-to-pay findings | The sentencing entry did not intend to impose appointed-counsel fees; docket shows separate approved fee entry and costs-due notice | Court did not purport to impose appointed-counsel, supervision, or confinement costs in the sentencing entry; nonetheless appointed-counsel fees appear on docket distinct from sentencing entry |
Key Cases Cited
- Beasley v. Maxwell, 153 Ohio St.3d 497, 108 N.E.3d 1028 (Ohio 2018) (discusses waivers and post-sentencing relief concerning court costs)
- State v. Jackson, 990 N.E.2d 184 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013) (fees under R.C. 2929.18(A)(4) treated as part of proceeding costs)
- State v. Moaning, 76 Ohio St.3d 126, 666 N.E.2d 1115 (Ohio 1996) (statutory construction; related statutes construed in pari materia)