Background
Kunta C. Daniels broke into a Dayton school on two consecutive days in July 2025 and later broke into a garage on the same street. He was charged in two Montgomery County cases with two counts of breaking and entering and one count of second-degree burglary.
Under a negotiated plea agreement, Daniels pleaded guilty to one fifth-degree-felony breaking-and-entering count and to a reduced third-degree-felony burglary charge. The trial court imposed the maximum terms—12 months and 36 months, respectively—to run concurrently, and assessed court costs. Daniels appealed, challenging the costs and the maximum sentences.
The Court’s Holding
The Second District affirmed. Court costs are governed by R.C. 2947.23, not the felony-financial-sanctions provisions that require consideration of an offender’s present and future ability to pay. Costs of prosecution are mandatory in criminal cases, and the court was not required to assess Daniels’s ability to pay before imposing them.
The maximum prison terms were also lawful. Both terms fell within the statutory ranges, and the record showed that the trial court considered the purposes and principles of felony sentencing. An appellate court may not independently reweigh the sentencing factors, and a maximum sentence is not unlawful merely because it is the maximum authorized term.
Key Takeaways
- Ohio trial courts need not consider a defendant’s ability to pay before imposing mandatory court costs.
- A court retains discretion to waive, suspend, or modify costs upon a motion, including after sentencing.
- Maximum felony sentences are not contrary to law when they are within the statutory range and the court considers R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the distinction between court costs and discretionary financial sanctions in Ohio criminal cases. Indigency alone does not bar the assessment of costs, although defendants may seek later relief under R.C. 2947.23(C).
It also underscores the narrow scope of appellate review of felony sentences after State v. Jones: courts of appeals do not reweigh sentencing considerations when the sentence is authorized by law.