State v. McHenry, 2017-Ohio-7672

In June 2013 Mark McHenry pled guilty to first-degree felony rape and was sentenced to 10 years (consecutive to another sentence for a 20-year aggregate). The court ordered payment of prosecution costs and a $25 non-refundable public defender application fee; no fines were imposed.
McHenry did not challenge his conviction or sentence at the time.
On June 2, 2017 McHenry moved to terminate or suspend court costs under R.C. 2947.23(C) and R.C. 2929.18, asserting indigence and inability to pay (earning $18/month in prison) and seeking waiver to alleviate hardship.
The trial court denied the motion on June 6, 2017; McHenry appealed that denial.
The sole legal contention: the trial court abused its discretion by failing to determine McHenry’s present and future ability to pay court costs as required by R.C. 2929.19.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court must assess present/future ability to pay before imposing or refusing to suspend court costs	State: Court costs are governed by R.C. 2947.23 which requires imposition of costs and does not demand ability-to-pay inquiry	McHenry: R.C. 2929.19 requires the sentencing court to consider present and future ability to pay before imposing financial obligations, so the court should have inquired	Court: R.C. 2929.19 does not apply to court costs; R.C. 2947.23 mandates imposition of costs without an ability-to-pay inquiry. Denial of the motion was not an abuse of discretion

Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (standard for abuse of discretion)
Crawford v. Eastland Shopping Mall Assn., 11 Ohio App.3d 158 (10th Dist. 1983) (purpose and procedure for accelerated calendar appeals)
State v. White, 103 Ohio St.3d 580 (2004) (a court must include prosecution costs in the sentence even for indigent defendants)
State v. Clevenger, 114 Ohio St.3d 258 (2007) (defendant’s financial status is irrelevant to imposition of court costs)