State v. Myers
2012 Ohio 5917
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Myers pleaded guilty in 2009 to illegal distribution of a dangerous drug and received 3 years of community control requiring completion of a West Central Community-Based Correctional Facility program.
- Myers violated community control; in January 2011 the court found her not amenable and sentenced her to 18 months in prison.
- In April 2011 the court granted judicial release and extended community control to five years (memorialized May 11, 2011).
- In November 2011 Myers was notified of alleged violations (Wal-Mart theft, failing to notify supervising officer, associating with a criminal individual); October 2011 driving under suspension violation noted separately.
- At the November 2011 dispositional hearing Myers admitted to three violations; the court revoked community control and ordered 18 months in prison; the court did not orally inform her that costs of revocation proceedings would be charged.
- In the judgment entry the court ordered Myers to pay the costs of the community control violation proceedings, finding she was not indigent for costs and that she is employable after custody; the entry allowed the court to convert costs to community service credits.
- Myers appeals arguing the oral notice at sentencing was missing, failure to consider ability to pay, and authority to impose court-appointed counsel fees; the court’s decision is appealed on these bases.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether costs were properly imposed without oral notice at sentencing. | Myers (State) argues costs were not lawfully imposed without Crim.R. 43(A) notice. | Myers contends lack of oral notice violated Crim.R. 43(A) and statutory requirements. | We hold the first issue is meritorious; remand for waiver opportunity on costs. |
| Whether the court considered Myers's ability to pay before imposing costs. | State contends costs are not governed by ability-to-pay rules for costs. | Myers asserts the court should have considered ability to pay under R.C. 2929.19. | R.C. 2929.19 does not apply to costs; remand allows indigency waiver consideration. |
| Whether the court could require court-appointed counsel fees as part of the sanctions. | Myers asserts counsel fees were improperly charged as sanctions. | Counsel fees were not charged as costs and were not in the termination entry. | Third issue lacks merit; counsel fees were not imposed as costs in the judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. White, 103 Ohio St.3d 580 (2004-Ohio-5989) (costs imposed but not punishment; indigent waiver possible by motion at sentencing)
- State v. Threatt, 108 Ohio St.3d 277 (2006-Ohio-905) (costs resemble civil judgment; not punitive in nature)
- State v. Joseph, 2010-Ohio-954 (125 Ohio St.3d 76) (oral notification of cost imposition at sentencing required)
- State v. Smith, 2007-Ohio-6552 (3d Dist. Allen No. 1-07-32) (costs distinct from financial sanctions; indigency waiver discussed)
- Columbus v. Kiner, 2011-Ohio-6462 (10th Dist. Franklin No. 11AP-543) (ability-to-pay considerations not required for costs under these statutes)