State v. Sibrian, 2020 Ohio 6769

Defendant Oswald Sibrian was convicted in 2016 of sexual offenses; after appeal two rape counts and a GSI count were reversed and he was resentenced in 2017; court costs were assessed and billed (about $1,748).
While incarcerated Sibrian filed a pro se motion (Feb. 2018) to vacate court costs, supported by a certified prison-account statement showing monthly state pay of $18 and a near-zero balance.
The trial court denied the motion with the single statement that Sibrian’s documentation was “not to be persuasive,” without further explanation.
On first appeal this court reversed and remanded, reasoning the trial court failed to explain its decision sufficiently to allow meaningful appellate review; the Ohio Supreme Court granted review and remanded for application of State v. Taylor.
On remand this court held that, although Taylor makes consideration of ability to pay optional, a trial court must still provide some explanation for denying a motion to waive/suspend costs so an appellate court can assess whether the denial was an abuse of discretion; the trial court’s order was reversed and the case remanded for reconsideration.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a trial court must consider a defendant’s present/future ability to pay when ruling on a motion to waive, suspend, or modify court costs under R.C. 2947.23(C)	State: Taylor controls—the statute does not require consideration of ability to pay (it’s permissive).	Sibrian: Trial courts should consider ability to pay when deciding post-conviction motions to waive costs.	Held: Taylor controls; consideration of ability to pay is not required but permitted.
Whether the trial court’s unexplained denial of Sibrian’s motion was an abuse of discretion	State: Trial court’s cursory denial was sufficient; Taylor forecloses requiring ability-to-pay analysis.	Sibrian: The trial court’s lack of explanation prevented meaningful appellate review; remand required.	Held: Even if ability-to-pay is not required, the trial court must give some rational explanation for denying a motion to waive/suspend costs; denial reversed and remanded for reconsideration.

State v. Braden, 145 N.E.3d 226 (Ohio 2018) (addressed mandatory assessment of costs and trial-court authority to address collection from indigent defendants)
State v. White, 817 N.E.2d 393 (Ohio 2004) (discussed court-costs assessment and collection; distinguished imposition from collection/waiver)
AAAA Ents., Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., 553 N.E.2d 597 (Ohio 1990) (defines abuse-of-discretion standard as unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable)