State v. VanCamp
Court of Appeals No. WD-15-034
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT WOOD COUNTY
Decided: May 13, 2016
[Cite as State v. VanCamp, 2016-Ohio-2980.]
Trial Court No. 2013CR0557
DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Paul A. Dobson, Wood County Prosecuting Attorney, Gwen Howe-Gebers, David T. Harold and Martha S. Schultes, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for aрpellee.
William F. Hayes, for appellant.
YARBROUGH, J.
I. Introduction
{¶ 1} Appellant, Jack VanCamp, appeals the judgment of the Wood County Court of Common Pleas, denying his motion to waive a mandatory fine of $7,500 arising from his conviction for illegal assembly or possession of chemicаls for the manufacture of drugs, pursuant to
{¶ 2} Appellant was charged with one count of illegal assembly or possession of chemicals for the manufacture of drugs,
{¶ 3} On June 27, 2014, aftеr several pretrial issues and negotiations with the state, appellant withdrew his former not guilty plea and entered а plea of guilty to one count of illegal assembly or possession of chemicals for the manufacture of drugs,
{¶ 4} After the guilty plea was acceрted, the court went directly to sentencing. Both appellant and the state recommended that the defendant bе ordered to serve the minimum, five-year prison term, to which the court complied. Appellant also made a mоtion at that time to waive the mandatory fine of $7,500. The court denied the motion and imposed the mandatory fine. Apрellant filed an appeal, challenging the imposition of
{¶ 5} Resentencing took place on March 20, 2015, at which point the court again denied the motion and ordered the defendant to рay the mandatory fine of $7,500. The court memorialized that decision in an order dated March 25, 2015. It is from this order that apрellant has filed his timely appeal.
B. Assignment of Error
{¶ 6} On appeal, appellant presents a sole assignment of error for our review:
I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE DEFENDANT/APPELLANT IN FAILING TO CONSIDER THE DEFENDANT/APPELLANT’S PRESENT AND FUTURE ABILITY TO PAY THE $7,500 MANDATORY FINE IMPOSED BY THE COURT.
II. Analysis
{¶ 7} In his assignment of error, appellant argues that the court erred by failing to apply appropriate standards in considering appellant’s present and future ability to pay the $7,500 mandatory fine imposed by the court. We disagree.
{¶ 8} For certain crimes, the court must impose a mandatory fine unless the offender is indigent and is unable to pay.
{¶ 10} Here, appellant argues that the court did not properly consider appellant’s present and future ability to pay the mandatory fine, and only speculated that he may be able to someday pay because of his age. We disagree. There are no express factors that the court must take into consideration, nor any findings in regards to the offender’s ability to pay that must be made on the record. State v. Martin, 140 Ohio App.3d 326, 747 N.E.2d 318 (4th Dist.2000). See also State v. Smith, 3d Dist. No. 2-06-37, 2007-Ohio-3129, ¶ 31, citing State v. Wells, 3d Dist. No. 13-02-17, 2002-Ohio-5318, ¶ 8.
{¶ 11} It is clear from the record that the court took appellant’s education into consideration. Although appellant now аrgues that he has minimal education and lacks a GED, at the July 27 plea and sentencing hearing, appellant told the court that he had three years of college. The court also considered appellant’s present and future ability to gain employment. Although appellant claims no apparent employable job skills, his attorney statеd at the March 20 hearing that he was gainfully employed two years prior to his
{¶ 12} In denying appellant’s motion to waive the mandatory fine, the record indicates that the court considered several factors: аppellant’s education, work experience, lack of impairments, and the fact that he will be an able bodied man in his mid-forties when he is released from prison.
{¶ 13} Accordingly, we conclude that the court complied with
III. Conclusion
{¶ 14} Based on the foregоing, the judgment of the Wood County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Costs are hereby assessed to appellant in acсordance with App.R. 24.
Judgment affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
C.A. No. WD-15-034
Thomas J. Osowik, J. _______________________________
JUDGE
Stephen A. Yarbrough, J.
_______________________________
James D. Jensen, P.J. JUDGE
CONCUR.
_______________________________
JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viеwing the final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/?source=6.