State v. CarrigerState v. Carriger
Christopher P. Frederick, 300 High Street, Suite 550, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for defendant appellant
M. POWELL, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Gregory Carriger, appeals the imposition of a mandatory fine by the Butler County Court of Common Pleas.
{¶ 2} On April 20, 2016, appellant pled guilty to one count of aggravated possession of drugs, a felony of the third degree, in violation of
{¶ 3} Appellant now appeals, raising one assignment of error:
{¶ 4} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY ORDERING MR. CARRIGER TO PAY $5,000 IN FINES WITHOUT REASONABLY CONSIDERING HIS INDIGENT STATUS AND FUTURE ABILITY TO PAY AS REQUIRED BY
{¶ 5} Appellant argues the trial court erred in imposing the $5,000 mandatory fine without considering his present and future ability to pay, as required by
{¶ 6} Pursuant to
{¶ 7} Thus, to avoid imposition of a mandatory fine at the time of sentencing, two things must occur: (1) the offender must submit an affidavit of indigency to the trial court prior to sentencing, and (2) the trial court must make a determination that the offender is in fact indigent. State v. Johnson, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2011-11-212, 2014-Ohio-3776, ¶ 10.
{¶ 8} Appellant correctly asserts that he filed an affidavit of indigency on January 27, 2016, prior to sentencing. However, this affidavit was filed for purposes of receiving appointed trial counsel, and not for purposes of avoiding imposition of the mandatory fine. The determination that a defendant is indigent for purposes of appointed counsel is separate
{¶ 9} The fact that an affidavit of indigency was not properly filed prior to sentencing pursuant to
{¶ 10} Appellant further argues the trial court erred in imposing the $5,000 mandatory fine because the court did not consider his present and future ability to pay the fine as required by
{¶ 11}
{¶ 12} In the case at bar, the trial court expressly noted in its sentencing entry that it had considered appellant‘s present and future ability to pay fines, and imposed the $5,000 mandatory fine. The trial court ordered a PSI, which detailed appellant‘s age, education, physical and mental health, and employment history. The trial court noted during the sentencing hearing and in its sentencing entry that it had reviewed the PSI.
{¶ 13} The PSI indicates that appellant was 37 years old at the time of his sentencing, so that he will be 39 years old upon his release from prison with many years of employability remaining. The PSI also indicates that appellant reported his back “goes out all the time” and that as a result of going to the hospital whenever his back goes out, he “currently owes ‘massive medical bills.‘” Nonetheless, the PSI indicates that appellant was employed at the time of the offense, “working under the table painting,” and that he has worked in construction in the past. Although appellant reported his current financial situation is bad, he further reported he was “able to provide for himself and pay his bills, when he is not incarcerated.”
{¶ 14} While it is true that appellant is not currently employed and will not be during his 24-month imprisonment,
{¶ 15} In light of appellant‘s failure to file an affidavit of indigency pursuant to
{¶ 16} Appellant‘s assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 17} Judgment affirmed.
HENDRICKSON, P.J. and PIPER, J., concur.