fine requirement in Ohio

2024R.C. 2947.14(C). {¶ 6} An offender who is arrested and taken into custody under R.C. 2947.14(C) is also entitled to a hearing on the “first regularly scheduled court day following the date of arrest in order to inform the court . . . of any change of circumstances that has occurred since the time of sentencing.” Id.

2024R.C. 2947.14(C). {¶ 6} An offender who is arrested and taken into custody under R.C. 2947.14(C) is also entitled to a hearing on the “first regularly scheduled court day following the date of arrest in order to inform the court . . . of any change of circumstances that has occurred since the time of sentencing.” Id.

1964Village of Addyson v. Liddle, 54 Ohio App., 323 , 6 N. E. (2d), 877, 18 A. L.

1953The Ohio authority [Village of Addyston v. Liddle, supra] indicates that a voluntary payment of a fine is a waiver of the right to secure a review, and that this is in accord with the great weight of authority. * # *” It cannot be disputed but that the weight of authority in the jurisdictions where the question has arisen, supports the Ohio case noted above, and especially where payments have been voluntarily made.

2013No. 12-CA-19, 2013-Ohio-1136 (finding that the trial court did not comply with R.C. 2929.19(B)(5) because there was no evidence in the record that the trial court considered the defendant’s present and future ability to pay the fine). {¶14} As for Graves’s reliance on R.C. 2947.14 for the proposition that the trial court was required to have a separate hearing on his ability to pay the fine, we summarily note that R.C. 2947.14, titled “Satisfaction of Fine,” deals with a defendant’s failure to pay a fine and the requirement to hold a hearing prior to committing a defendant to jail or the workh

2007The Fine test requires the reviewing court to: "1) examine the terms of the Full Faith and Credit Clause; 2) look to the law of the state where the class action suit was decided to determine whether the Ohio case would be barred from raising its claims in another lawsuit in that state; and 3) determine whether the other state's judicial system, specifically the circuit court, extended due process to the class when approving the form of notice employed in that action and finding that the class members were adequately represented." Id. at 137 . {¶ 12} In this case, the trial court granted Dryvit

2007The Fine test requires the reviewing court to: "1) examine the terms of the Full Faith and Credit Clause; 2) look to the law of the state where the class action suit was decided to determine whether the Ohio case would be barred from raising its claims in another lawsuit in that state; and 3) determine whether the other state's judicial system, specifically the circuit court, extended due process to the class when approving the form of notice employed in that action and finding that the class members were adequately represented." Id. at 137 . {¶ 12} In this case, the trial court granted Dryvit

2006Bowman challenges the use of the term "ton" in 440.01(b) as being nonspecific in terms of actual weight in contrast to the penalty provisions of Middleburg Heights Code Section 440.01(e), which calculate the fine for a violation of 440.01(b) in terms of pounds. {¶ 9} "In the construction of statutes the purpose in every instance is to ascertain and give effect to the legislative intent, and it is well settled that none of the language employed therein should be disregarded, and that all of the terms used should be given their usual and ordinary meaning and signification except where the lawmak

1993Fines can be reduced upon a finding of indigency, see State v. Cravens (1988), 42 Ohio App.3d 69 , 536 N.E.2d 686 , and may be partially or totally suspended, R.C. 2929.51(F)(2) commentary, and sentences may be ameliorated through probation.

1993Fines can be reduced upon a finding of indigency, see State v. Cravens (1988), 42 Ohio App.3d 69 , 536 N.E.2d 686 , and may be partially or totally suspended, R.C. 2929.51(F)(2) commentary, and sentences may be ameliorated through probation.