Background
Ronald Rouse pleaded guilty to one fifth-degree-felony count of aggravated possession of drugs. The trial court had found him indigent and appointed counsel to represent him at his plea-change and sentencing hearings.
At sentencing, Rouse reported that he had recently found employment. After reviewing his presentence-investigation report and lengthy criminal history, the trial court imposed an 11-month prison term and an additional consecutive term because Rouse committed the offense while under post-release-control supervision. The court also ordered him to pay court costs. Rouse appealed only the costs, arguing that imposing them was contrary to law and an abuse of discretion given his indigency, limited work history, recent incarceration, and new prison sentence.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District affirmed. Because Rouse had not objected to the costs in the trial court, the appellate court reviewed only for plain error. It explained that R.C. 2947.23(A)(1)(a) requires sentencing courts to impose prosecution costs on all convicted defendants, including those who are indigent or sentenced to prison.
Although R.C. 2947.23(C) permits a sentencing court to waive, suspend, or modify costs, the court is not required to consider a defendant’s ability to pay before imposing them. The trial court therefore committed no obvious error by assessing costs against Rouse despite his financial circumstances and incarceration. The appellate court also noted that the trial court retains jurisdiction to waive, suspend, or modify the obligation at any time, allowing Rouse to seek relief there later.
Key Takeaways
- Ohio sentencing courts must impose prosecution costs on convicted defendants regardless of indigency.
- A trial court may consider ability to pay when deciding whether to waive, suspend, or modify costs, but it is not required to do so.
- A defendant who did not seek relief from costs at sentencing may later ask the sentencing court to waive, suspend, or modify them.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes the mandatory initial assessment of criminal court costs from a court’s continuing discretion to grant relief from that obligation. Indigency and imprisonment do not themselves make the assessment erroneous, but defendants retain a post-sentencing route to request modification or forgiveness of the costs.