State v. Lundy, 2018 Ohio 2243

In 2013 Michael L. Lundy was convicted of rape, kidnapping, and aggravated burglary and sentenced to a cumulative 40-year term; he was classified as a Tier III sex offender.
This court affirmed Lundy’s conviction on direct appeal, and his judgment became final on November 10, 2014.
On February 5, 2018 Lundy filed a pro se motion in the trial court to waive, suspend, or modify payment of court costs.
The trial court denied the motion the next day, concluding the motion was barred by res judicata.
Lundy appealed; the Third District reviewed whether the trial court had jurisdiction and whether denying the motion as barred by res judicata was an abuse of discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by denying Lundy’s post-judgment motion to waive, suspend, or modify court costs as barred by res judicata	The State argued the trial court correctly concluded Lundy’s motion was precluded by res judicata	Lundy argued R.C. 2947.23(C) gives the trial court continuing jurisdiction to consider post-judgment motions to waive/suspend/modify costs and his motion is timely	The court held res judicata did not bar the motion because Lundy’s judgment became final after the March 22, 2013 amendment to R.C. 2947.23; remanded for the trial court to consider the motion on the merits

State v. Clinton, Ohio St.3d (2017) (discussing requirement to assess costs against defendants and standards for post-judgment cost relief)
State v. Dunson, 150 Ohio St.3d 1442 (2017) (Supreme Court accepted question on what trial courts must consider when ruling on post-judgment motions to waive/suspend/modify costs)
State v. Threatt, 108 Ohio St.3d 277 (2006) (standard of review for certain post-judgment criminal matters)
State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151 (1980) (definition of abuse of discretion)
State v. Beasley, Ohio St.3d (2018) (addresses post-amendment application of R.C. 2947.23 to motions to modify court costs)