State v. Shreve , 2021 Ohio 351 ( 2021 )

[Cite as State v. Shreve, 2021-Ohio-351.]
COURT OF APPEALS
STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES:
: Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. John W. Wise, J.
: Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J.
-vs- :
:
JACK SHREVE, SR. : Case No. 2020-CA-00146
:
Defendant-Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Court of Common
Pleas, Case No. 2016-CR-1488
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT: February 8, 2021
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
JOHN D. FERRERO JACK SHREVE, SR. PRO SE
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY Inmate No. 692-196
STARK COUNTY, OHIO Noble Correction Institution
15708 McConnelsville Road
By: KATHLEEN O. TATARSKY Caldwell, OH 43724
110 Central Plaza South - Suite 510
Canton, OH 44702-1413
Stark County, Case No. 2020-CA-00146 2
Wise, Earle, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant Jack Shreve, Sr., appeals the September 16, 2020
judgment of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas denying his motion to vacate or
suspend court cost and fines or restitution. Appellee is the state of Ohio.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶ 2} On December 28, 2016, following a jury trial, Shreve was convicted on
charges of rape and gross sexual imposition. He was subsequently sentenced to an
aggregate term of life imprisonment with parole eligibility after 15 years. We affirmed
Shreve's convictions and sentence on October 30, 2017. State v. Shreve, 5th Dist. Stark
No. 2016CR1488, 2017-Ohio-8390.
{¶ 3} On January 27, 2020, Shreve filed a motion to vacate or suspend court
costs, fines or restitution. The trial court denied the motion of January 31, 2020, and noted
it had not ordered Shreve to pay fines or restitution. Shreve did not appeal.
{¶ 4} On September 11, 2020, Shreve filed a similar motion, requesting he be
permitted to perform community service in lieu of court costs. The trial court denied the
motion on September 16, 2020.
{¶ 5} Shreve filed an appeal raising one assignment of error as follows:
I
{¶ 6} "THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING
APPELLANT'S MOTION TO VACATE AND/OR SUSPEND COURT COST AND FINES
OR RESTITUTION."
{¶ 7} In his sole assignment of error, Shreve argues the trial court abused its
discretion in denying his motion to vacate or suspend court costs, and fines or restitution
Stark County, Case No. 2020-CA-00146 3
because he is indigent. Shreve appears to argue the trial court was required to consider
his present and future ability to pay court costs before denying his motion. We disagree.
{¶ 8} R.C. 2947.23, governs the imposition of costs and states: "In all criminal
cases, including violations of ordinances, the judge or magistrate shall include in the
sentence the costs of prosecution * * * and render a judgment against the defendant for
such costs." R.C. 2947.23(A)(1)(a). Subsection (C), however, permits the trial court to
retain jurisdiction to "waive, suspend, or modify the payment of the costs of prosecution *
* * at the time of sentencing or at any time thereafter." Therefore, while imposition of court
costs is mandatory, a trial court has discretion to waive the payment of court costs
whether a defendant is indigent or not. The trial court's decision regarding whether to
waive, suspend, or modify payment of court costs is, therefore, "reviewed under an abuse
of discretion standard." State v. Eblin, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2019-0036, 2020-Ohio-
1216. In order to find an abuse of discretion, we must determine the trial court's decision
was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable and not merely an error of law or
judgment. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983).
{¶ 9} First, as the state points out and Shreve concedes, Shreve was never
ordered to pay a fine or restitution.
{¶ 10} Next, as for payment of court costs, Shreve cites State v. Copeland, 2d Dist.
Montgomery No. 26842, 2016-Ohio-7797 in support of his argument that a trial court
abuses its discretion when it denies a request to waive or suspend payment of court costs
when it has failed to consider a defendant's indigence or ability to pay. The reasoning in
Copeland, however, was recently abrogated in State v. Taylor, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2020-
Ohio-3514, which found a trial court is not required to consider a defendant's present or
Stark County, Case No. 2020-CA-00146 4
future ability to pay when ruling on motion to vacate, suspend, or modify court costs under
R.C. 2947.23(C). Taylor at ¶ 16.
{¶ 11} Because the trial court was not required to consider Shreve's present or
future ability to pay court costs, Shreve's sole assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 12} The judgment of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
By Wise, Earle, J.
Hoffman, P.J. and
Wise, John, J. concur.
EEW/rw