State v. Walker
2011 Ohio 5270
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Walker, indicted for murder with firearm specifications and weapon-under-disability, was convicted in 2006 and sentenced to 23 years to life plus court costs.
- The judgment included an order to pay court costs; direct appeal did not challenge costs at that time.
- Walker sought to vacate court costs in 2007, which the trial court denied; he renewed the motion in 2010, which was denied.
- This appeal challenges whether the court erred by denying vacatur of costs after costs were listed in the sentencing entry but not announced orally at sentencing.
- The court treats the issue as governed by statutes and case law on imposition of costs and indigency, and applies res judicata principles to bar post-appeal challenges.
- The appellate court affirms the trial court’s denial, holding the issue was waived or barred by res judicata and that proper procedures for cost imposition were satisfied under governing law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to announce court costs in open court requires vacating them. | State argues costs were properly imposed in the judgment and not eligible for vacatur. | Walker contends Joseph requires reversal when open-court notification was missing. | No reversible error; res judicata bars the post-appeal challenge. |
| Whether the open-court notification requirement from Joseph applies post-appeal to vacate costs. | State maintains Joseph governs direct-appeal context only. | Walker relies on Joseph to invalidate costs not notified in open court. | Joseph does not govern post-appeal challenges; res judicata applies. |
| Whether indigency considerations affect the imposition of court costs where costs were imposed. | State argues indigency does not shield from costs; waiver is discretionary. | Walker contends indigency should preclude costs absent waivers. | Indigency does not automatically exempt; waiver must be timely sought and is discretionary. |
| Whether the failure to preserve the issue at sentencing forecloses relief beyond direct appeal. | State asserts issue was properly not waived beyond direct appeal due to statutory framework. | Walker argues failure to announce creates error that can be corrected post-appeal. | Issue is barred by res judicata and not subject to post-appeal review. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Threatt, 108 Ohio St.3d 277 (2006-Ohio-905) (indigency does not shield from costs; waivable at sentencing)
- State v. White, 103 Ohio St.3d 580 (2004-Ohio-5989) (costs must be assessed against all defendants; indigency waiver available by motion at sentencing)
- State v. Joseph, 125 Ohio St.3d 76 (2010-Ohio-954) (Crim.R. 43(A) open-court notification required for costs; direct-appeal context)
- State v. Brown, 2011-Ohio-1096 (8th Dist.) (open-court notification issue not corrected post-appeal; res judicata concerns)
- State v. Lunsford, 2011-Ohio-964 (2d Dist.) (limits post-appeal challenges; res judicata applies)