2023 Ohio 1100
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- Appellant Roberto Velesquez pleaded no contest to two second‑degree felony counts of endangering children and was sentenced to a minimum of 10 years (maximum indeterminate 12.5 years). The sentencing hearing referenced that he could “work off [his] court costs while in custody.”
- The trial court’s final June 28, 2022 judgment entry assessed costs of prosecution, and additionally stated the defendant was "found to have, or reasonably may be expected to have, the means to pay" costs of supervision and confinement.
- The court did not make an on‑the‑record finding at the sentencing hearing regarding Velesquez’s present or future ability to pay discretionary costs, nor did the record contain evidence of his financial situation at sentencing.
- Velesquez appealed, arguing the costs of confinement and supervision were improperly imposed without the required consideration of his ability to pay; the State conceded error as to the discretionary costs.
- The Sixth District concluded the record lacked clear and convincing evidence supporting a finding that Velesquez has or will have the ability to pay costs of confinement; it vacated the confinement‑costs assessment, affirmed the remainder of the judgment, and noted supervision costs were not applicable because a prison term was imposed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court lawfully imposed costs of confinement and supervision without on‑the‑record ability‑to‑pay findings | State conceded error and asked court to vacate the discretionary costs portion of the entry | Velesquez argued costs were improperly assigned because no findings at sentencing and no evidence of present/future ability to pay | Vacated the portion of the judgment assessing costs of confinement; costs of supervision were not imposed (prison sentence), remainder of judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Taylor, 163 Ohio St.3d 508, 2020-Ohio-6786, 171 N.E.3d 290 (trial court not required to state ability‑to‑pay findings on the record though best practice is to do so)