2005 Ohio 714 | Ohio Ct. App. | 2005
{¶ 3} In his first two assignments of error, Appellant has averred that the trial court erred in fining him and imposing the costs of his prosecution on him. Specifically, Appellant has argued that the trial court was on notice that he was indigent and should have conducted a hearing prior to imposing a fine and costs. This Court disagrees.
{¶ 4} In part, Appellant has asserted that the trial court erred in assessing costs against him because he is indigent. However, the Ohio Supreme Court has squarely held that costs may be assessed against an indigent defendant convicted of a felony. State v. White,
{¶ 5} Additionally, Appellant has argued that the trial court erred when it failed to hold a hearing before fining him. The standard of review regarding sentencing for a misdemeanor is abuse of discretion. Inre Slusser (2000),
{¶ 6} A trial court is authorized to impose a financial sanction for a misdemeanor conviction pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 7} Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing costs and fining Appellant as a part of his sentence. Accordingly, Appellant's first and second assignments of error are overruled.
{¶ 8} In his final assignment of error, Appellant has argued that the trial court erred in imposing a probation requirement that he not consume alcohol or visit a bar or lounge which serves alcohol. Under the facts presented here, this Court agrees.
{¶ 9} A trial court has broad discretion in imposing conditions of probation. Lakewood v. Hartman (1999),
{¶ 10} The reasonableness of probation conditions must be evaluated using the three-prong test set forth in State v. Jones (1990),
"consider whether the condition (1) is reasonably related to rehabilitating the offender, (2) has some relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted, and (3) relates to conduct which is criminal or reasonably related to future criminality and serves the statutory ends of probation." Id.
{¶ 11} In the instant matter, Appellant was convicted of passing a bad check. In support of his probation requirement relating to alcohol, the State has asserted it is valid because Appellant has prior convictions involving alcohol offenses. However, the record before this Court does not support such a statement. There is no evidence in the record of a presentence investigation. Further, there is no evidence that the trial court was ever informed of Appellant's prior alcohol offenses. Rather, upon requesting that the State detail Appellant's criminal history, the trial court was informed that Appellant had convictions for petty theft, receiving stolen property, and carrying a concealed weapon. However, there is no indication that the trial court was informed in any fashion, through oral or written communication, of Appellant's alleged prior alcohol offenses.
{¶ 12} As such, the condition of Appellant's probation at issue cannot satisfy the test set forth in Jones. While there is little doubt that the condition is reasonably related to rehabilitating the offender and relates to conduct regarding future criminality, it cannot meet the second prong. Jones,
Judgment affirmed in part reversed in part, and cause remanded.
The Court finds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Wayne County Municipal Court, County of Wayne, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(E). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
Costs taxed to both parties equally.
Exceptions.
Carr, J., Batchelder, J. Concur.