(A) The determination of indigency shall be made by the state public defender, subject to review by the court. This section does not apply in relation to sections 120.51 to 120.55 of the Revised Code.
(B) The state public defender shall investigate the financial status of each person to be represented, at the earliest time the circumstances permit, and may require the person represented to disclose the records of public or private income sources and property, otherwise confidential, which may be of aid in determining indigency. The state public defender may obtain information from any public record contained in any office of the state, or any political subdivision or agency thereof, on request without payment of any fees ordinarily required by law. He shall make the results of the investigation available to the court upon request. The court, before whom a person seeking representation is taken, may determine the person's eligibility for legal representation by the state public defender.
(C) If a determination of eligibility cannot be made before the time when the first services are to be rendered by the state public defender, he shall render such services on a provisional basis. If the state public defender, or the court on review, subsequently determines that the person receiving the services is ineligible, the public defender shall notify the person of the termination of his services.
(D) Where the person represented has, or may reasonably be expected to have, the means to meet some part of the cost of the services rendered to him, he shall reimburse the state public defender in an amount which he can reasonably be expected to pay.
(E) If it is determined by the state public defender, or by the court, that the legal representation was provided to a person not entitled thereto, the person may be required to reimburse the public defender for the costs of the representation provided. Any action filed by the state public defender to collect legal fees hereunder, must be brought within two years from the last date legal representation was provided.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1988–2025 · leading case: Lager v. Pittman, 746 N.E.2d 1199 (Ohio Ct. App. 2000).
Lager v. Pittman, 746 N.E.2d 1199 (Ohio Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 10דIn turn, R.C. 120.05 sets forth the provisions governing the State Public Defender’s decision regarding whether representation should be provided in a given case: “(A) The determination of indigency shall be made by the state public defender, subject to review by the court.”
State v. McLean, 622 N.E.2d 402 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 4ד15(D), this section (R.C. 120.05[D]) applies equally to state and county public defenders and reflects the General Assembly’s policy favoring collection of attorney fees for court-appointed counsel from criminal defendants who have the ability to pay.”
State v. Glasure, 724 N.E.2d 1165 (Ohio Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2דAppel-lee cites R.C. 120.05, which explains the process by which indigency is established.”
State v. Weaver, 527 N.E.2d 805 (Ohio 1988). · cites it 3דR.C. 120.05 governs the process by which indigency is established and representation by the public defender is authorized.”
State v. Crenshaw, 761 N.E.2d 1121 (Ohio Ct. App. 2001). “* * *” See, also, R.C. 120.05. 1 The trial court’s assessment of attorney fees as a fine conflates R.”
Shaker House, L.L.C. v. Daniel, 2022 Ohio 2778 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “2000), the court held that a judge’s order requiring the county public defender to conduct indigency interviews at a specific time and place was invalid because it conflicted with R.C. 120.05(B), which gave the public defender discretion to decide how to fulfill its obligation…”
State v. Easley, 2012 Ohio 455 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2דHe has argued that the state public defender failed to determine whether he was indigent, as required by Section 120.05 of the Ohio Revised Code, and that the municipal court failed to determine, in the manner required by Criminal Rule 44(D), whether he was able to retain…”
State v. Johnson, 2016 Ohio 7731 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2ד32(B)(3)(a),(b) AS WELL AS APPELLATE COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO RAISE THE ISSUE ON APPEAL; ALSO TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO COMPLY WITH R.C. 120.05 (A), (B); FAILING TO [INVESTIGATE] AND SUBMIT A FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE/AFFIDAVIT OF INDIGENCY FORM TO THE COURT FOR DETERMINATION OF INDIGENCY…”
State v. Riegel, 2012 Ohio 4517 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2ד14-11-27 and 14-11-28 The county public defender shall determine indigency of persons, subject to review by the court, in the same manner as provided in section 120.05 of the Revised Code. Each monthly report submitted to the board of county commissioners and the state public…”
State v. Beall, 2025 Ohio 5585 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2דSOCIAL MEDIA AND FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE OF HIS HOUSEHOLD INCOME, VIOLATING R.C. §120.05, OHIO ADMIN. CODE 120-1-03, AND THE 14TH AMEND.”
Johnson v. Warden Chillicothe Corr. Inst. (S.D. Ohio 2020). “32(C);_ R.C. 120.05(A); OHIO ADMINISTRATIVE CODE RULE: 120-1-03; 120-i-05; RESULTING IN [JURISDICTIONAL, PROCEDURAL, PREJUDICIAL, AND REVERSIBLE PLAIN ERROR], THEREBY, RENDERING HIS [SENTENCE & SENTENCING ENTRY], [UNAUTHORIZED BY LAW], [CONTRARY TO LAW], [A NULLITY AND VOID…”
State v. Auxter, 2017 Ohio 1311 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “08CA0090, 2010-Ohio-4760 , ¶ 59. However, the 8. defendant can be ordered to pay his appointed counsel’s fees and expenses if the court finds the defendant “has, or reasonably may be expected to have, the means to meet some part of the cost of the services rendered to the person.”
State v. Johnson, 2016 Ohio 7731 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). “32(B)(3)(a),(b) AS WELL AS APPELLATE COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO RAISE THE ISSUE ON APPEAL; ALSO TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO COMPLY WITH R.C. 120.05 (A), (B); FAILING TO [INVESTIGATE] AND SUBMIT A FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE/AFFIDAVIT OF INDIGENCY FORM TO THE COURT FOR DETERMINATION OF INDIGENCY…”
Johnson v. Warden Chillicothe Corr. Inst. (S.D. Ohio 2020). “32(C);_ R.C. 120.05(A); OHIO ADMINISTRATIVE CODE RULE: 120-1-03; 120-i-05; RESULTING IN [JURISDICTIONAL, PROCEDURAL, PREJUDICIAL, AND REVERSIBLE PLAIN ERROR], THEREBY, RENDERING HIS [SENTENCE & SENTENCING ENTRY], [UNAUTHORIZED BY LAW], [CONTRARY TO LAW], [A NULLITY AND VOID…”
Ohio Rev. Code § 120.05(B): 3 cases
Lager v. Pittman, 746 N.E.2d 1199 (Ohio Ct. App. 2000). “In turn, R.C. 120.05 sets forth the provisions governing the State Public Defender’s decision regarding whether representation should be provided in a given case: “(A) The determination of indigency shall be made by the state public defender, subject to review by the court.”
State v. McLean, 622 N.E.2d 402 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993). “15(D), this section (R.C. 120.05[D]) applies equally to state and county public defenders and reflects the General Assembly’s policy favoring collection of attorney fees for court-appointed counsel from criminal defendants who have the ability to pay.”
Shaker House, L.L.C. v. Daniel, 2022 Ohio 2778 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “2000), the court held that a judge’s order requiring the county public defender to conduct indigency interviews at a specific time and place was invalid because it conflicted with R.C. 120.05(B), which gave the public defender discretion to decide how to fulfill its obligation…”
Ohio Rev. Code § 120.05(C): 1 case
Lager v. Pittman, 746 N.E.2d 1199 (Ohio Ct. App. 2000). “In turn, R.C. 120.05 sets forth the provisions governing the State Public Defender’s decision regarding whether representation should be provided in a given case: “(A) The determination of indigency shall be made by the state public defender, subject to review by the court.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 120.05(D): 2 cases
State v. McLean, 622 N.E.2d 402 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993). “15(D), this section (R.C. 120.05[D]) applies equally to state and county public defenders and reflects the General Assembly’s policy favoring collection of attorney fees for court-appointed counsel from criminal defendants who have the ability to pay.”
State v. Auxter, 2017 Ohio 1311 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “08CA0090, 2010-Ohio-4760 , ¶ 59. However, the 8. defendant can be ordered to pay his appointed counsel’s fees and expenses if the court finds the defendant “has, or reasonably may be expected to have, the means to meet some part of the cost of the services rendered to the person.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.