State v. RiceState v. Rice
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: March 31, 2022
Appearances:
Michael C. O‘Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Alaina Hagans, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Anna Markovich, for appellant.
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, A.J.:
{1} Appellant Alan Rice (“Rice“) appeals his sentence to the maximum prison term for his robbery conviction and the trial court‘s imposition of financial sanctions. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Count 2 (As amended): Robbery in violation of
R.C. 2911.02(A)(1) , a felony of the second degree, with one- and three-year firearm specifications and a forfeiture of a weapon specification.Count 3 (As amended): Having weapons while under disability in violation of
R.C. 2923.13(A)(2) , a felony of the third degree, with a forfeiture of a weapon specification.Count 5 (As charged): Tampering with evidence in violation of
R.C. 2921.12(A)(1) , a felony of the third degree, with a forfeiture of a weapon specification.Count 7 (As charged): Drug possession in violation of
R.C. 2925.11(A) , a felony of the fifth degree, with a forfeiture of a weapon specification.
The remaining counts were nolled. The trial court accepted Rice‘s guilty plea and ordered a presentence-investigation report (“PSI report“).
{3} At sentencing, the trial court imposed a total aggregate prison term of 11 years, ordered Rice to pay a fine of $250 on each count for a total financial sanction of $1,000, imposed costs, and ordered Rice to forfeit his weapon. In the sentencing entry, the trial court stated that it “considered all required factors of the law” and found that “prison is consistent with the purpose of
{4} Under his first assignment of error, Rice challenges the trial court‘s imposition of the maximum prison term of eight years on the base charge for the robbery conviction. Rice argues that the trial court misapplied
{5} An appellate court‘s review of a felony sentence is governed by
- That the record does not support the sentencing court‘s findings under division (B) or (D) of
section 2929.13 , division (B)(2)(e) or (C)(4) ofsection 2929.14 , or division (I) ofsection 2929.20 of the Revised Code , whichever, if any, is relevant; - That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.
{6} The statutory findings referenced in
{7} ”
{8}
{9}
{10} “[N]either
{11} The record in the present case plainly shows that the prison term imposed by the trial court was within the statutory range and that the court considered the purposes of felony sentencing set forth in
{12} Under his second assignment of error, Rice claims the trial court erred by imposing financial sanctions on appellant without considering his ability to pay.
{13}
{14} Rice argues that the record shows he did not have the ability to pay the fines imposed by the trial court. Rice states that he was declared indigent and appointed counsel. He also states that the PSI report shows that at the time of sentencing, he was 32 years old, he only finished 10th grade, he was unemployed, he was behind on child support, his finances were poor, and he was living with this mother. He further states that he was sentenced to 11 years of imprisonment, not community control. He maintains the totality of circumstances demonstrates the court failed to consider his present and future ability to pay the fines.
{15} “The fact that a defendant is ‘indigent’ or is represented by appointed counsel does not preclude a trial court from imposing financial sanctions.” State v. Brown, 2020-Ohio-4474, 158 N.E.3d 972, ¶ 42 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Nitsche, 2016-Ohio-3170, 66 N.E.3d 135, ¶ 76 (8th Dist.); see also State v. Cruz, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 106098, 2018-Ohio-2052, ¶ 28. Likewise, a lengthy prison sentence does not necessarily preclude a trial court from imposing financial sanctions. Brown at ¶ 42, citing Nitsche at ¶ 76.
{16} In this case, the trial court imposed a $250 fine for each count for a total financial sanction of $1,000. Rice did not object the court‘s imposition of the fines upon him. Although the trial court did not specifically inquire into Rice‘s present or future ability to pay the financial sanction, the court ordered a PSI report. The PSI report reflected that Rice was only 32 years old and was living with his
{17} Rice also challenges the trial court‘s imposition of costs. Because the imposition of the costs of prosecution is mandatory under
{18} Rice‘s second assignment of error is overruled.
{19} Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant‘s
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, J., and LISA B. FORBES, J., CONCUR