DocketNumber: Case No. 98-L-205.
Judges: Christley, Ford, Nader
Filed Date: 12/17/1999
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024
On February 11, 1998, appellant was arrested for driving while under the influence of alcohol after she failed roadside sobriety tests administered by an officer from the Painesville Police Department. Appellant was transported to the police station where she submitted to a Breathalyzer test. The machine indicated that appellant had a concentration of .146 of one gram by weight of alcohol per two hundred ten liters of her breath.
On March 30, 1998, the Lake County Grand Jury indicted appellant for driving while under the influence of alcohol in violation of R.C.
Subsequently, appellant withdrew this plea and entered a written plea of guilty to the charge under R.C.
The matter came on for sentencing on August 3, 1998. The trial court sentenced appellant to serve a mandatory term of sixty days in the Lake County Jail and to pay a mandatory fine of $750. The trial court also suspended appellant's driver's license for a period of three years.
Prior to the hearing, appellant had filed an affidavit of indigency in which she averred that she was indigent and unable to pay the mandatory fine associated with her conviction for driving while under the influence of alcohol. Subsequently, during the sentencing hearing, the assistant public defender representing appellant raised the issue of the latter's indigency. The public defender acknowledged that the $750 fine appeared to be statutorily mandated, but she requested that *Page 101 the trial court nevertheless rule on her oral motion to waive the fine in order to preserve the issue for appellate review. The trial court obliged and overruled the motion on the ground that it was required by statute to impose a minimum mandatory fine of $750 for a fourth degree felony OMVI offense.
From her conviction and sentence, appellant filed a timely notice of appeal with this court. She now asserts the following assignment of error:
"The trial court erred to the prejudice of defendant-appellant when it imposed the mandatory fine despite the indigence of the defendant-appellant."
In her lone assignment of error, appellant posits that the trial court erred by imposing the $750 fine. According to appellant, the trial court had a duty to make an affirmative determination of her ability to pay the fine. Appellant further claims that upon making this determination, the trial court had the discretion to waive the payment of the fine based on her indigency. On appeal, appellant asks us to vacate the fine and to remand the matter with instructions for the trial court to hold a hearing on whether appellant has the ability to pay the fine in light of the affidavit of indigency that she filed prior to the sentencing hearing.
We decline to do so. Contrary to appellant's position, the trial court had no choice but to levy the financial sanction on appellant, notwithstanding her alleged status as an indigent defendant.
As described previously, appellant had three prior convictions for violating R.C.
It is axiomatic that the General Assembly not only has the power to define and classify crimes committed within the state, but also is lodged with broad plenary authority to prescribe punishment for such criminal offenses. See State v. Rush (1998),
As part of appellant's sentence, the trial court had to impose a minimum mandatory term of local incarceration of sixty consecutive days of imprisonment in accordance with R.C.
Beyond the mandatory term of local incarceration, R.C.
"In addition to all other sanctions imposed, the court shall impose upon the offender, pursuant to section
2929.18 of the Revised Code, a fine of not less than seven hundred fifty nor more than ten thousand dollars." (Emphasis added.)
In turn, R.C.
"For a fourth degree felony OMVI offense, the sentencing court shall impose upon the offender a mandatory fine in the amount specified in division (A)(4) of section
4511.99 of the Revised Code." (Emphasis added.)
When read in conjunction, R.C.
There is no ambiguity in these statutes. In both instances, the General Assembly used the word "shall," as opposed to the word "may." The Supreme Court of Ohio has observed:
"In statutory construction, the word `may' shall be construed as permissive and the word `shall' shall be construed as mandatory unless there appears a clear and unequivocal legislative intent that they receive a construction other than their ordinary usage." Dorrian v. Scioto Conservancy Dist. (1971),
27 Ohio St. 2d 102 , paragraph one of the syllabus.
With regard to R.C.
R.C.
"For a first, second, or third degree felony violation of any provision of Chapter 2925., 3719., or 4729. of the Revised Code, the sentencing court shall impose upon the offender a mandatory fine of at least one-half of, but not more than, the maximum statutory fine amount authorized for the level of the offense pursuant to division (A)(3) of this section. If an offender alleges in an affidavit filed with the court prior to sentencing that the offender is indigent and unable to pay the mandatory fine and if the court determines the offender is an indigent person and is unable to pay the mandatory fine described in this division, the court shall not impose the mandatory fine upon the offender." (Emphasis added.)
Obviously, when the General Assembly intended to allow for the possibility that a mandatory fine could be waived, the legislature included language to that effect in the relevant statutory division itself. R.C.
In the case at bar, appellant was convicted of a fourth degree felony violation of R.C. Chapter 4511, to wit: driving while under the influence of alcohol as proscribed by R.C.
Appellant's reliance on State v. Haberman (Feb. 1, 1994), Union App. Nos. 14-93-24 and 14-93-25, unreported, 1994 WL 29872, to support her position is misplaced. In Haberman, the defendant pled guilty to the first degree misdemeanor version of driving while under the influence of alcohol in violation of R.C.
Haberman is clearly distinguishable from the instant case. InHaberman, the trial court was operating under the R.C.
By contrast, the trial court in the present case was guided by the R.C.
Appellant is incorrect in asserting that the trial court had a duty to hold a hearing to determine her ability to pay the fine. Moreover, the trial court had no discretion to waive the fine associated with the offense to which appellant pled guilty. Indeed, this court has previously held that R.C.
Based on the foregoing analysis, the assignment of error is meritless. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
_________________________ JUDGE JUDITH A. CHRISTLEY
FORD, P.J., NADER, J., concur.
"If the offender is being sentenced for a fourth degree felony OMVI offense and if the court is required by division (G)(1) of section
2929.13 of the Revised Code to impose as a sanction a mandatory term of local incarceration, the court shall impose the mandatory term of local incarceration in accordance with that division, shall impose a mandatory fine in accordance with division (B)(3) of section2929.18 of the Revised Code, and, in addition, may impose additional sanctions as specified in sections2929.15 ,2929.16 ,2929.17 , and2929.18 of the Revised Code." (Emphasis added.)