State v. VanCamp, 2016 Ohio 2980

Jack VanCamp pled guilty to illegal assembly/possession of chemicals for manufacture of drugs (R.C. 2925.041), a second-degree felony; another first-degree count was dismissed in exchange.
At plea/sentencing, he was informed he faced a mandatory five-year prison term, a $7,500 mandatory fine, and three years of postrelease control; he acknowledged understanding and pleaded guilty.
The trial court imposed the five-year minimum sentence, denied VanCamp’s motion to waive the $7,500 mandatory fine, and ordered the fine.
VanCamp appealed the fine; that appeal was voluntarily dismissed with an agreement to resentence limited to the fine issue.
On resentencing the trial court again denied the motion to waive the mandatory fine, and VanCamp appealed to the Sixth District Court of Appeals.
The appellate court reviewed whether the trial court properly considered VanCamp’s present and future ability to pay before imposing the mandatory fine.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by failing to consider VanCamp’s present and future ability to pay before imposing a $7,500 mandatory fine	State: trial court complied with statutory requirements and did not abuse discretion in denying waiver	VanCamp: court failed to properly consider his present and future ability to pay and thus should have waived the mandatory fine	Appellate court: trial court considered education, work history, lack of impairments, and future ability to obtain work; compliance with R.C. 2929.19(B)(6) shown; no abuse of discretion — judgment affirmed

State v. Gipson, 80 Ohio St.3d 626, 687 N.E.2d 750 (1998) (offender bears burden to show indigence; trial court need not make affirmative finding of ability to pay)
State v. Martin, 140 Ohio App.3d 326, 747 N.E.2d 318 (2000) (no specific factors or required on-the-record findings mandated before imposing or waiving fines)