State v. Stapleton , 2020 Ohio 852 ( 2020 )

[Cite as State v. Stapleton, 2020-Ohio-852.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
ALLEN COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO,
CASE NO. 1-19-66
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
LEO J. STAPLETON, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Allen County Common Pleas Court
Trial Court No. CR 2016 0520
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: March 9, 2020
APPEARANCES:
Leo Stapleton Appellant
Jana E. Emerick for Appellee
Case No. 1-19-66
WILLAMOWSKI, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Leo Stapleton (“Stapleton”) brings this appeal
from the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Allen County imposing court
costs. Stapleton argues that the trial court erred by imposing costs without
considering his ability to pay. For the reasons set forth below, the judgment is
affirmed.
{¶2} On September 6, 2017, Stapleton entered pleas of guilty to one count of
murder and one count of burglary. Doc. 122. Stapleton entered a plea of no contest
to the repeat violent offender specification. Id. The trial court accepted the pleas
of guilty, found Stapleton guilty of the specification, and entered a judgment of
conviction. Id. The trial court held a sentencing hearing on October 20, 2017. Doc.
134. On November 6, 2017, the trial court entered judgment sentencing Stapleton
to a prison term of 15 years to life for the murder conviction, 10 years for the repeat
violent offender specification, and 36 months for the burglary conviction. Id. The
sentences for murder and the repeat violent offender specification were set to run
consecutive to each other, but the sentence for burglary ran concurrent to the others
for an aggregate term of 25 years to life in prison. Id. As part of the sentence, the
trial court ordered Stapleton to pay court costs. Id. Stapleton filed a direct appeal
from this judgment. Doc. 135. The appeal was dismissed pursuant to the guidelines
set forth in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493(1967), on February 7, 2018. Doc. 146.
-2-
Case No. 1-19-66
{¶3} On April 26, 2018, Stapleton filed a motion to vacate or suspend court
costs. Doc. 148. The trial court denied the motion on April 30, 2018. Doc. 149.
On April 23, 2019, Stapleton filed a motion to suspend of modify the court costs.
Tr. 152. The trial court denied the motion on April 24, 2019. Doc. 153. On
September 23, 2019, Appellant again filed a motion to vacate the court costs. Tr.
155. The trial court denied this motion on that same day. Tr. 156. Stapleton
appealed from this judgment. Doc. 158. On appeal, Stapleton raises the following
assignment of error.
Trial court erred when it imposed court costs without assessing
Defendant’s ability to pay.
{¶4} The sole assignment of error in this case is that the trial court erred in
imposing court costs without first assessing Stapleton’s ability to pay the costs.
Initially, this court notes that this issue was one that could have been raised on direct
appeal. “‘[A] convicted defendant is precluded under the doctrine of res judicata
from raising and litigating in any proceeding, except an appeal from that judgment,
any defense or any claimed lack of due process that was raised or could have been
raised by the defendant at the trial which resulted in that judgment of conviction or
on appeal from that judgment.’” State v. Jones, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 17AP-431,
2018-Ohio-306, ¶ 13, quoting State v. Szefcyk, 77 Ohio St.3d 93, 96 (1996). Since
this issue could have been raised previously on direct appeal, the issue is barred by
the doctrine of res judicata.
-3-
Case No. 1-19-66
{¶5} Even if the issue was not precluded, the result would not change. “In
all criminal cases, including violations of ordinances, the judge or magistrate shall
include in the sentence the costs of prosecution, including any costs under section
2947.231 of the Revised Code, and render a judgment against the defendant for such
costs.” R.C. 2947.23(A)(1)(a). The question of whether a trial court must first
determine a defendant’s ability to pay court costs before imposing them has
previously been addressed by this court in State v. Snuggs, 3d Dist. Henry Nos. 7-
16-03, 7-16-05, 2016-Ohio-5466. In Snuggs, the defendant challenged the trial
court’s denial of his motion to stay the payment of costs and fines. Id. at ¶ 16. This
Court first noted that there were no fines, only court costs. Id. Snuggs’ argument
was that the trial court erred by imposing court costs without first holding a hearing
to determine his ability to pay due to his indigent status. Id. This Court noted that
the imposition of court costs is not discretionary pursuant to R.C. 2947.23. Id. “This
applies without consideration of a defendant’s ability to pay.” Id. This Court then
noted that although the trial court retains jurisdiction to waive, suspend, or modify
the payment at any time from sentencing forward, that decision is left to the sound
discretion of the trial court. Id.
{¶6} Here, like in Snuggs, the trial court did not impose any financial
sanction, only court costs. Stapleton claims that the trial court was required to
determine his ability to pay before doing so. This is an incorrect statement of the
law. Although R.C. 2929.18 permits a trial court to hold a hearing to determine
-4-
Case No. 1-19-66
ability to pay financial sanctions such as restitution, that requirement does not apply
to court costs. State v. Smith, 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-07-32, 2007-Ohio-6552. The
statute specifically differentiates court costs from financial sanctions by saying that
financial sanctions may be imposed “in addition to” court costs. R.C. 2929.18(A).
Thus, the trial court did not err by imposing court costs without first determining
appellant’s ability to pay the costs. The assignment of error is overruled.
{¶7} Having found no prejudice in the particulars assigned and argued, the
judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Allen County is affirmed.
Judgment Affirmed
SHAW, P.J. and PRESTON, J., concur.
/hls
-5-