section 2947.231 costs in Ohio

2026ANALYSIS {¶23} R.C. 2947.23(A)(1)(a) states, "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." Under subsection (C), a trial court "retains jurisdiction to waive, suspend, or modify the payment of the costs of prosecution, including any costs under section 2947.231 of the Revised Code, at the time of sentencing or at any time thereafter." "The statutory language provides no explicit

2023Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 , 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983). {¶13} R.C. §2947.23, in pertinent part, states: (A)(1)(a) 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. *** Ashland County, Case No. 23 COA 003 4 (C) The court retains jurisdiction to waive, suspend, or modify the payment of prosecution, including any costs under section 2947.231 of the Revised Code, at the time of

2019State v. Beasley, 153 Ohio St.3d 497 , 2018-Ohio-493 , 108 N.E.3d 1028, ¶ 263 . {¶ 11} Abandoning Joseph as a foundation for this case, appellant next declares that R.C. 2947.23 explicitly grants jurisdiction to the trial court “To waive, suspend or modify the payment of costs of prosecution at the time of sentencing, or any time thereafter.” That section states: “(C) The court retains jurisdiction to waive, suspend, or modify the payment of the costs of prosecution, including any costs under section 2947.231 of the Revised Code, at the time of sentencing or at any time thereafter.” {¶ 12} For

2019State v. Beasley, 153 Ohio St.3d 497 , 2018-Ohio-493 , 108 N.E.3d 1028, ¶ 263 . {¶ 11} Abandoning Joseph as a foundation for this case, appellant next declares that R.C. 2947.23 explicitly grants jurisdiction to the trial court “To waive, suspend or modify the payment of costs of prosecution at the time of sentencing, or any time thereafter.” That section states: “(C) The court retains jurisdiction to waive, suspend, or modify the payment of the costs of prosecution, including any costs under section 2947.231 of the Revised Code, at the time of sentencing or at any time thereafter.” {¶ 12} For

2019Court Costs {¶37} “Effective March 23, 2013, the General Assembly enacted R.C. 2947.23(C), which states, ‘The court retains jurisdiction to waive, suspend, or modify the payment of the costs of prosecution, including any costs under section 2947.231 of the Revised Code, at the time of sentencing or at any time thereafter.’” State v. Braden, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-5079, ¶19 . 8 {¶38} “R.C. 2947.23 ‘requires a court to assess costs against all convicted defendants,’ indigent and nonindigent.” Id. at ¶14 (emphasis sic), quoting State v. White, 103 Ohio St.3d 580 , 2004-Ohio-5989 , ¶8. “‘There

2018Clevenger, 114 Ohio St.3d 258 , 2007-Ohio- 4006, 871 N.E.2d 589 , at paragraphs one and two of the syllabus. {¶ 18} Accordingly, at the time of Braden’s sentencing in 1999, the only opportunity he had to seek a waiver of costs was at sentencing; the trial court lacked jurisdiction to reconsider its final order, and any collateral attack on that order in either the trial or appellate court was barred by res judicata, see State v. Beasley, 153 Ohio St.3d 497 , 2018-Ohio-493 , 108 N.E.3d 1028, ¶ 264-265 ; Clinton at ¶ 239 . {¶ 19} Effective March 23, 2013, the General Assembly enacted R.C. 2947.2

2018S.B. 337, 2012 Ohio Laws File 131; State v. Smith , 131 Ohio St.3d 297 , 2012-Ohio-781 , 964 N.E.2d 423 , syllabus (community service notification in R.C. 2947.23(A)(1) is mandatory). {¶ 51} Another bill passed in 2012 added language to R.C. 2947.23(C) to state that trial courts retain "jurisdiction to waive, suspend, or modify the payment of the costs of prosecution, including any costs under section 2947.231 of the Revised Code, at the time of sentencing or at any time thereafter." Sub.

2018S.B. 337, 2012 Ohio Laws File 131; State v. Smith , 131 Ohio St.3d 297 , 2012-Ohio-781 , 964 N.E.2d 423 , syllabus (community service notification in R.C. 2947.23(A)(1) is mandatory). {¶ 51} Another bill passed in 2012 added language to R.C. 2947.23(C) to state that trial courts retain "jurisdiction to waive, suspend, or modify the payment of the costs of prosecution, including any costs under section 2947.231 of the Revised Code, at the time of sentencing or at any time thereafter." Sub.

2023Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 , 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983). {¶13} R.C. §2947.23, in pertinent part, states: (A)(1)(a) 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. *** Ashland County, Case No. 23 COA 003 4 (C) The court retains jurisdiction to waive, suspend, or modify the payment of prosecution, including any costs under section 2947.231 of the Revised Code, at the time of

2023Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 , 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983). {¶13} R.C. §2947.23, in pertinent part, states: (A)(1)(a) 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. *** Ashland County, Case No. 23 COA 003 4 (C) The court retains jurisdiction to waive, suspend, or modify the payment of prosecution, including any costs under section 2947.231 of the Revised Code, at the time of

2017Id. {¶ 8} As to the imposition of costs, R.C. 2947.23(C), effective March 22, 2013, provides "[t]he court retains jurisdiction to waive, suspend, or modify the payment of the costs of prosecution, including any costs under section 2947.231 of the Revised Code, at the time of sentencing or at any time thereafter." However, this court has recently held that "where sentence was imposed and the judgment became final before the effective date of [the most recent version of R.C. 2947.23(C)], the trial court cannot 'retain[] jurisdiction' to waive, suspend, or modify costs when it did not have the au

2014We conclude, pursuant to R.C. 2974.23(C), that the trial court erred in failing to consider the suspension of Luedeke’s court costs. {¶ 10} Regarding fines, the record reflects that no fines were imposed upon Luedeke. {¶ 11} To the extent that Luedeke’s motions were addressed to restitution, the Ohio Supreme Court, in State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 , 226 N.E.2d 104 (1967), syllabus at ¶ 9, determined as follows: Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment of conviction bars a convicted defendant who was represented by counsel from raising and litigating in any proceeding except an

2014However, effective 3–22–2013, R.C. 2947.23(C) was amended to provide “The court retains jurisdiction to waive, suspend, or modify the payment of the costs of prosecution, including any costs under section 2947.231 of the Revised Code, at the time of sentencing or at any time thereafter.” [Cite as State v. Adams, 2014-Ohio-528 .] {¶ 8} Adams’ assignment of error is overruled, and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed. .............

2014At that hearing, the trial court failed to take into consideration, appellant’s present and future ability to [pay] a fine, cost and restitution as it did at the original sentencing hearing conducted on April 13, 2010.” {¶ 8} We initially note that the record before us does not reflect that Luedeke was “resentenced” by the trial court on May 21, 2013, and Luedeke has not provided a transcript of 5 any court proceeding, if in fact one took place. {¶ 9} Regarding court costs, we note that R.C. 2974.23 was amended, effective March 22, 2013, and that R.C. 2947.23(C) provides as follows: “The court

2026A. Law {71} R.C. 2947.23(A)(1)(a) states: “[i]n 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.” The Supreme Court of Ohio has consistently held that “R.C. 2947.23 requires a trial court to assess costs against all criminal defendants, even if the defendant is indigent.” State v. Dean, 2015-Ohio-4347, ¶ 231 , citing State v. White, 2004- Ohio-5989, ¶ 8.

2023E.g., State v. Brandon, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2019-CA-53, 2020-Ohio-5406, ¶ 24 .

2022Miami No. 2010-CA-30, 2012-Ohio-112 , ¶ 44- 47, 49. {¶ 136} Although Hart did not object to the order of restitution, the record reflects that the court expressly considered his PSI and his present and future ability to pay, and it stayed the payment of the other costs until the restitution to Moore was paid. {¶ 137} Hart did not request a waiver of the payment of court costs at sentencing, 6 R.C. 2947.23(C), effective in 2014, states: “The court retains jurisdiction to waive, suspend, or modify the payment of the costs of prosecution, including any costs under section 2947.231 of the Revised

2021R.C. 2947.23(C) permits a trial court "to waive, suspend, or modify the payment of the costs of prosecution, including any costs under section 2947.231 of the Revised Code, at the time of sentencing or any time thereafter." -2- Warren CA2021-04-042 {¶7} Recently, the Ohio Supreme Court clarified the test that should apply when an indigent defendant makes an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim based on counsel's failure to request a waiver of court costs, stating that "a reviewing court must apply the test in State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 141-142 , 538 N.E.2d 373 (1989), which adopte

2021R.C. 2947.23(C) permits a trial court "to waive, suspend, or modify the payment of the costs of prosecution, including any costs under section 2947.231 of the Revised Code, at the time of sentencing or any time thereafter." -2- Warren CA2021-04-042 {¶7} Recently, the Ohio Supreme Court clarified the test that should apply when an indigent defendant makes an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim based on counsel's failure to request a waiver of court costs, stating that "a reviewing court must apply the test in State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 141-142 , 538 N.E.2d 373 (1989), which adopte

2021R.C. 2947.23(C) permits a trial court "to waive, suspend, or modify the payment of the costs of prosecution, including any costs under section 2947.231 of the Revised Code, at the time of sentencing or any time thereafter." -2- Warren CA2021-04-042 {¶7} Recently, the Ohio Supreme Court clarified the test that should apply when an indigent defendant makes an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim based on counsel's failure to request a waiver of court costs, stating that "a reviewing court must apply the test in State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 141-142 , 538 N.E.2d 373 (1989), which adopte

2020State v. Braden, Slip Opinion No. 2019-Ohio-4204 , ¶ 23 and 30; State v. Moore, 6th Dist. Erie No. E-19-009, 2019-Ohio-4609, ¶ 15 . {¶12} In State v. Davis, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-309 , the Ohio Supreme Court recently addressed whether trial counsel’s failure to ask the trial court to waive 5 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS court costs at sentencing constituted ineffective assistance when the defendant had previously been found indigent.

2020State v. Braden, Slip Opinion No. 2019-Ohio-4204 , ¶ 23 and 30; State v. Moore, 6th Dist. Erie No. E-19-009, 2019-Ohio-4609, ¶ 15 . {¶12} In State v. Davis, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-309 , the Ohio Supreme Court recently addressed whether trial counsel’s failure to ask the trial court to waive 5 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS court costs at sentencing constituted ineffective assistance when the defendant had previously been found indigent.

2020Warren No. CA2014-11-135, 2015-Ohio-3710 , 41 N.E.3d 899 , ¶ 30 (“An appellate court may not modify a financial sanction unless it finds by clear and convincing evidence that it is not supported by the record or is contrary to law.”). {¶ 56} In its sentencing entry, the trial court ordered that appellant is “ordered to pay the costs of this prosecution, including the jury trial.” Appellant acknowledges that costs of prosecution are mandatory under R.C. 2947.23(A)(1)(a), which provides: “In all criminal cases, including violations of ordinances, the judge or magistrate shall include in the sent

2020Lorain No. 14CA010648, 2015-Ohio-3724, ¶ 15 .

2020State v. Smith, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2018- 0063, 2019-Ohio-3048 . {¶16} Upon review, we find no abuse of discretion in this case.

2019Court Costs {¶37} “Effective March 23, 2013, the General Assembly enacted R.C. 2947.23(C), which states, ‘The court retains jurisdiction to waive, suspend, or modify the payment of the costs of prosecution, including any costs under section 2947.231 of the Revised Code, at the time of sentencing or at any time thereafter.’” State v. Braden, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-5079, ¶19 . 8 {¶38} “R.C. 2947.23 ‘requires a court to assess costs against all convicted defendants,’ indigent and nonindigent.” Id. at ¶14 (emphasis sic), quoting State v. White, 103 Ohio St.3d 580 , 2004-Ohio-5989 , ¶8. “‘There

2018(Nos. 2017-1579 and 2017-1609—Submitted July 31, 2018—Decided December 19, 2018.) APPEAL from and CERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 17AP-48, 2017-Ohio-7903 . _______________________ SUPREME COURT OF OHIO KENNEDY, J. {¶ 1} In this discretionary appeal and certified-conflict case, we consider the meaning of R.C. 2947.23(C), which provides that “[t]he court retains jurisdiction to waive, suspend, or modify the payment of the costs of prosecution, including any costs under section 2947.231 of the Revised Code, at the time of sentencing or at any time thereafter.” The Secon

2017See R.C. 2947.23(A)(1)(a) ("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.") (emphasis added); State v. Clevenger , 114 Ohio St.3d 258 , 2007-Ohio-4006 , 871 N.E.2d 589 , ¶ 3 (defendant's financial status is "irrelevant to the imposition of court costs."); State v. Moore , 135 Ohio St.3d 151 , 2012-Ohio-5479 , 985 N.E.2d 432 , ¶ 11. {¶ 17} Payment of court costs can, however, be wa

2017See R.C. 2947.23(A)(1)(a) ("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.") (emphasis added); State v. Clevenger , 114 Ohio St.3d 258 , 2007-Ohio-4006 , 871 N.E.2d 589 , ¶ 3 (defendant's financial status is "irrelevant to the imposition of court costs."); State v. Moore , 135 Ohio St.3d 151 , 2012-Ohio-5479 , 985 N.E.2d 432 , ¶ 11. {¶ 17} Payment of court costs can, however, be wa

2016Montgomery No. 26842, 2016-Ohio-7797 . -7- We held that the trial court abused its discretion by overruling a post-conviction request to waive or suspend the payment of costs imposed as part of a felony sentence when the trial court failed to consider the defendant’s indigency and ability to pay.