State v. Lincoln
2016 Ohio 1274
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Desiree Lincoln was indicted on two counts of rape; later charged via bill of information with an additional first-degree felony rape count. She pleaded guilty to the information and the indictment counts were dismissed.
- The PSI and CDTC reports were prepared; Lincoln was found competent to stand trial and had diagnoses including depression and ADHD, limited education (10th grade), no GED, no employment history, and was functioning in the range of mild intellectual disability to borderline intelligence.
- At sentencing the trial court stated it considered the PSI, CDTC reports, victim impact statements, letters, and the statutory sentencing factors; it imposed a nine-year mandatory prison term (within the 3–11 year range), five years postrelease control, and Tier III registration.
- The court ordered Lincoln to pay costs of prosecution, supervision, confinement, and assigned counsel, finding she had or may be expected to have the means to pay. Lincoln did not object at trial and timely appealed.
- On appeal Lincoln argued (1) the court imposed financial sanctions without considering present or future ability to pay and (2) the nine-year sentence was an abuse of discretion for improper weighing of R.C. 2929.12 factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court erred by imposing financial sanctions without considering ability to pay | Lincoln: court must record some evidence it considered present/future ability to pay or hold a hearing under R.C. 2929.18(E) | State: record shows court reviewed PSI/CDTC and noted age, literacy, health — sufficing to show consideration | Partial reversal: costs of prosecution and supervision may be imposed without ability-to-pay finding; costs of confinement and appointed counsel require clear-and-convincing evidence of ability to pay and court’s finding lacked that evidence, so those costs vacated |
| Whether nine-year mandatory sentence was an abuse of discretion | Lincoln: trial court did not properly weigh 2929.12 seriousness/recidivism factors | State: court considered statutory factors, PSI, CDTC, victim impact statements and sentencing statutes | Affirmed: sentence within statutory range, court’s findings supported by clear-and-convincing evidence and not contrary to law |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Carter, 89 Ohio St.3d 593 (Ohio 2000) (failure to object at trial waives error absent plain error)
- State v. Wogenstahl, 75 Ohio St.3d 344 (Ohio 1996) (plain error requires that outcome would clearly have been otherwise)
- State v. Perz, 173 Ohio App.3d 99 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007) (definition and scope of costs of prosecution)
- State v. Clevenger, 114 Ohio St.3d 258 (Ohio 2007) (imposition of court costs not conditioned on ability to pay)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (Ohio 1958) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)