State v. Thomas
2017 Ohio 4436
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- DeWayne Thomas pleaded guilty to 18 counts (including 10 for forgery) arising from a fraudulent-check scheme and was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment and $5,941.38 restitution.
- Thomas did not raise allied-offense, restitution-apportionment, or court-costs objections at sentencing; he raised them on appeal.
- First assignment: Thomas argued certain forgery counts were allied offenses and should have merged at sentencing under R.C. 2941.25(A).
- Second assignment: Thomas argued the trial court erred by not apportioning restitution among codefendants.
- Third assignment: The sentencing transcript did not show the court announcing court costs, but the journal entry assessed them; Thomas argued this violated Crim.R. 43(A) and Joseph.
- The state conceded the court failed to address costs at sentencing but contended the error was harmless given statutory authority to waive costs post‑sentencing and Thomas’s pending motion to waive costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether forgery convictions were allied offenses requiring merger at sentencing | Thomas: corresponding A(2) and A(3) forgery counts are allied and should merge | State: no concession; no allied-offense discussion below; issue forfeited absent plain error | Court: No plain error shown; assignment overruled |
| Whether restitution amount was improper or should be apportioned among codefendants | Thomas: court should have apportioned restitution among co-defendants | State: restitution ordered did not exceed victims’ economic loss; Thomas did not object at trial; claims outside record | Court: No plain error; amount within statute; assignment overruled |
| Whether imposition of court costs in journal entry (but not pronounced at sentencing) violated Crim.R. 43(A) and Joseph | Thomas: failure to announce costs denied opportunity to seek waiver; reversible error per Joseph | State: concedes omission but argues harmless because R.C. 2947.23(C) lets court waive costs later and Thomas has moved to waive costs | Court: Error in not announcing costs was harmless because court retains jurisdiction to waive costs at any time and Thomas has sought waiver; judgment affirmed |
| Whether appellate plain-error review should be exercised to correct allied-offense or restitution forfeitures | Thomas: plain error standard should apply to correct sentencing defects | State: appellant bears burden to demonstrate plain error; no record support here | Court: Plain-error standard not met; no exceptional circumstances warranting relief |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365, 922 N.E.2d 923 (Ohio 2010) (trial court must account for allied offenses when present and state concedes issue)
- State v. Joseph, 125 Ohio St.3d 76, 926 N.E.2d 278 (Ohio 2010) (failure to notify defendant of court costs at sentencing denies opportunity to claim indigency and seek waiver; reversible error)
- State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385, 38 N.E.3d 860 (Ohio 2015) (plain-error burden on appellant; appellate courts have limited discretion to correct plain error)
- State v. Quarterman, 140 Ohio St.3d 464, 19 N.E.3d 900 (Ohio 2014) (definition and application of plain-error standard)
- State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 759 N.E.2d 1240 (Ohio 2001) (plain-error relief limited to exceptional circumstances to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice)