STATE OF OHIO v. MICHAEL HAYNES
C.A. CASE NO. 2013 CA 90
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR CLARK COUNTY, OHIO
June 20, 2014
[Cite as State v. Haynes, 2014-Ohio-2675.]
T.C. NO. 10 CR 517, 10 CR 560, 10 CR 732; (Criminal appeal from Common Pleas Court)
LISA M. FANNIN, Atty. Reg. No. 0082337, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, 50 E. Columbia Street, 4th Floor, Springfield, Ohio 45501 Attorney for Plaintiff-Apрellee
MICHAEL HAYNES, #645111, Marion Correctional Institute, P. O. Box 57, Marion, Ohio 43301 Defendant-Appellant
FROELICH, P.J.
{2} For the following reasons, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.
{3} On December 15, 2010, Haynes was convicted on his guilty pleas on two counts of robbery in Clark C.P. No. 10-CR-517, one count of burglary in Clark C.P. No. 10-CR-560, and of one count of robbery in Clark C.P. No. 10-CR-732. He was sentenced to a four-year term on each offense, to be served consecutively, for an aggregate term of 16 years. In each case, the court ordered Haynes “to pay all costs of prosecution, Court appointed counsel costs and any fees permitted pursuant to
{4} In March 2013, Haynes filed a Motion to Correct Sentence in each of the three cases. While these motions were pending, Haynes filed motions for leave to file delayed appeal with this court, which raisеd some of the same issues. In September 2013, the trial court denied the motions to correct sentence, finding no error in the sentences. In October 2013, this court denied the motions for delayed appeal, and Haynes filed notices of appeal from the trial court‘s denials of his motions to correct sentence.
{5} Haynes raises six assignments of error on appеal. His arguments fall into two categories. The first category consists of assignments five and six, which state:
Trial court erred in sentenсing to consecutive sentences without making findings pursuant to
Trial court erred in not determining present and future ability to pay befоre imposing financial sanctions.
{7} In order to constitute plain error, the error must be an obvious defect in the trial рroceedings, and the error must have affected substantial rights. State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 2002-Ohio-68, 759 N.E.2d 1240. Under the plain error doctrine, errors or defects affeсting substantial rights may be noticed on appeal although they were not brought to the attention of the trial court.
{8} Res judicata bars relitigation оf a matter that was raised or could have been raised on direct appeal, State v. Griffin, 138 Ohio St.3d 108, 2013-Ohio-5481, 4 N.E.3d 989. Otherwise, appeals could bе filed indefinitely. Haynes‘s arguments under these assignments fall within that category, and are barred by res judicata.
{9} Further, Haynes‘s arguments under thеse assignments of error are without merit. In most cases, a trial court is not required to give reasons explaining its findings with respect to the imposition of consecutive sentences, nor is it required to “recite any ‘magic’ or ‘talismanic’ words when imposing consecutive sentences,” so long as the record reflects that
{10} With respect to financial sanctions or costs and the trial court‘s alleged failure to determine whether Haynes had the ability tо pay, we observe that each of the trial court‘s judgments ordered Haynes “to pay all costs of prosecution, Court appointed counsel costs and any fees permitted pursuant to [R.C.] 2929.18(A)(4).” None of the records indicates how much, if any аmount, Haynes was actually required to pay. Further, in Clark C.P. No. 10-CR-517, $2,100 that was confiscated from Haynes by the Springfield Police Department was seized “to be applied toward the court costs imposed on all of the above cases.” Becausе the records do not establish that Haynes was ordered to pay financial sanctions that exceeded the amount confiscated from him, we have no basis to conclude that the trial court erred in failing to more closely examine his ability to pay. Moreover, court costs are not financial sanctions, and thus a trial court need not consider a defendant‘s ability to pay before imposing such costs. State v. Lux, 2d Dist. Miami No. 2010-CA-30, 2012-Ohio-112, ¶ 45; Columbus v. Kiner, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 11AP-543, 2011-Ohio-6462, ¶ 4. Further, since March 2013, “[t]he court retains jurisdiction to waive, suspend, or modify the pаyment of the costs of prosecution, including any costs under section 2947.231 of the Revised Code, at the time of sentencing or аt any time thereafter.”
{11} The fifth and sixth assignments of error are overruled.
{12} The first, second, third, and fourth assignments of error state:
The trial court erred in not advising of right to appeal pursuant to
Trial court failed to properly impose post-release control pursuant to
Trial court erred by not cоnsidering the necessary factors set forth in
{13} Under these assignments of error, Haynes raises issues with respect to the trial court‘s sentencing entries and whether the court made the necessary findings before imposing the sentences that it did. Haynes acknowlеdges that he raised these same issues in his motions for delayed appeal, which we overruled.
{14} As we discussed above, the issues raised in Haynes‘s assignments of error could have been raised on direct appeal, and are barred by res judicatа, regardless of whether they might be characterized as plain error. The time for filing a direct appeal is long past, Aрp.R. 4(A), so any appeal could be taken only with leave of this court. App.R. 5(A). Having denied Haynes‘s motions for leave to appeal, wherein he attempted to raise these matters, we will not consider these issues.
{15} The first, second, third, and fourth assignments of error are overruled.
{16} The judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.
DONOVAN, J. and HALL, J., concur.
Lisa M. Fannin
Michael Haynes
Hon. Richard J. O‘Neill