[Cite as State v. Ramsey, 2014-Ohio-4232.]
COURT OF APPEALS
LICKING COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO JUDGES:
Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. W. Scott Gwin, J.
Hon. John W. Wise, J.
-vs-
Case No. 13-CA-119
ASHLEY RAMSEY
Defendant-Appellant OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Licking County Municpal
Court, Case No. 13CRB02020
JUDGMENT: Reversed and Remanded
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: September 22, 2014
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
AMY S. DAVISON WILLIAM T. CRAMER
40 West Main Street 470 Olde Worthington Road, Suite 200
Newark, Ohio 43055 Westerville, Ohio 43082
Licking County, Case No. 13-CA-119 2
Hoffman, P.J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Ashley Ramsey appeals her sentence entered by the
Licking County Municipal Court for obstructing official business, in violation of R.C.
2921.31. Plaintiff-appellee is the state of Ohio.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
{¶2} On September 30, 2013, Appellant entered a plea of guilty to one count of
obstructing official business, in violation of R.C. 2921.31, a second-degree
misdemeanor. The charge stemmed from a car accident in which Appellant was
involved. The trial court accepted the plea, dismissing a failure to stop charge, in
violation of R.C. 4549.02, a first-degree misdemeanor. The trial court imposed a one-
year term of community control, a thirty-day jail sentence with twenty days suspended,
and a fine of $200, along with court costs and fees.
{¶3} Appellant appeals, assigning as error:
{¶4} “I. THE TRIAL COURT VIOLATED R.C. 2947.14 BY INCLUDING A
PROVISION IN THE SENTENCING ENTRY INDICATING THAT APPELLANT WOULD
BE JAILED FOR NON-PAYMENT OF A FINE WITHOUT DETERMINING AT
SENTENCING THAT APPELLANT HAD THE ABILITY TO PAY THE FINE AND
INCLUDING THE STATUTORY FINDINGS IN A WRITTEN JUDGMENT ENTRY.
{¶5} “II. THE TRIAL COURT VIOLATED R.C. 2947.14 BY AUTHORIZING
CREDIT OF $30 PER DAY FOR JAIL TIME IMPOSED FOR NON-PAYMENT OF
FINES WHEN THE STATUTE PROVIDES FOR $50 PER DAY.”
1
A rendition of the underlying facts is unnecessary for the resolution of this appeal.
Licking County, Case No. 13-CA-119 3
I. and II.
{¶6} Appellant’s assigned errors raise common and interrelated issues;
therefore, we will address the arguments together.
{¶7} The trial court’s September 30, 2013 Journal Entry-Sentence of Court
states,
{¶8} “Judgment is hereby rendered [sic] this court for the amount of the fine
and costs imposed, and upon failure of the defendant to pay same, he may be given a
reasonable time in which to make payment. But, if the same is not paid within the time
given, the defendant is to be incarcerated in the city/county jail until the fine is paid,
receiving credit of $30 per day for each day incarcerated toward the balance remaining
on the fine. The Clerk shall then proceed to collect the cost according to appropriate
civil procedure.”
{¶9} R.C. 2947.14 provides,
{¶10} “(A) If a fine is imposed as a sentence or a part of a sentence, the court or
magistrate that imposed the fine may order that the offender be committed to the jail or
workhouse until the fine is paid or secured to be paid, or the offender is otherwise
legally discharged, if the court or magistrate determines at a hearing that the offender is
able, at that time, to pay the fine but refuses to do so. The hearing required by this
section shall be conducted at the time of sentencing.
{¶11} “(B) At the hearing, the offender has the right to be represented by
counsel and to testify and present evidence as to the offender's ability to pay the fine. If
a court or magistrate determines after considering the evidence presented by an
offender, that the offender is able to pay a fine, the determination shall be supported by
Licking County, Case No. 13-CA-119 4
findings of fact set forth in a judgment entry that indicate the offender's income, assets,
and debts, as presented by the offender, and the offender's ability to pay.
{¶12} “(C) If the court or magistrate has found the offender able to pay a fine at a
hearing conducted in compliance with divisions (A) and (B) of this section, and the
offender fails to pay the fine, a warrant may be issued for the arrest of the offender. Any
offender held in custody pursuant to such an arrest shall be entitled to a hearing on the
first regularly scheduled court day following the date of arrest in order to inform the court
or magistrate of any change of circumstances that has occurred since the time of
sentencing and that affects the offender's ability to pay the fine. The right to the hearing
on any change of circumstances may be waived by the offender.
{¶13} “At the hearing to determine any change of circumstances, the offender
has the right to testify and present evidence as to any portion of the offender's income,
assets, or debts that has changed in such a manner as to affect the offender's ability to
pay the fine. If a court or magistrate determines, after considering any evidence
presented by the offender, that the offender remains able to pay the fine, that
determination shall be supported by a judgment entry that includes findings of fact upon
which such a determination is based.
{¶14} “(D) No person shall be ordered to be committed to a jail or workhouse or
otherwise be held in custody in satisfaction of a fine imposed as the whole or a part of a
sentence except as provided in this section. Any person imprisoned pursuant to this
section shall receive credit upon the fine at the rate of fifty dollars per day or fraction of
a day. If the unpaid fine is less than fifty dollars, the person shall be imprisoned one
day.”
Licking County, Case No. 13-CA-119 5
{¶15} Here, the trial court did not address Appellant’s ability to pay at
sentencing, nor did the trial court file an entry containing findings of fact upon which the
court based its determination Appellant was able to pay the fine.
{¶16} This Court has followed the line of Ohio case law holding the hearing
requirement is not triggered until the trial court decides to incarcerate the offender for
failure to pay the fine. See, State v. Meyer 124 Ohio App.3d 373 (1997). In State v.
Chaney, 5th Dist. 2004CAC07057, 2004-Ohio-6712, this Court held the defendant was
entitled to a hearing at the time he was brought before the court for enforcement of the
fine. In Chaney, this Court held,
{¶17} “In the case of State v. White, 103 Ohio St.3d 580, 817 N.E.2d 393, 2004-
Ohio-5989, the Ohio Supreme Court found a trial court may assess court costs against
an indigent defendant convicted of a felony as part of the sentence. The Clerk of Courts
may attempt to collect the costs from the indigent defendant. Here, the costs arose from
a misdemeanor offense, but we find that fact alone does not render White inapplicable
here.
{¶18} “R.C. 2929.18 makes a hearing discretionary when the court initially
imposes a fine, but R.C. 2947.14 mandates a hearing held to determine an offender's
ability to pay in the event he faces incarceration due to non-payment, see State v.
Meyer (1997), 124 Ohio App.3d 373, 706 N.E.2d 378.
{¶19} “In the event appellant is at some later time brought before the trial court
for failure to pay his fine and costs, he would be entitled to a hearing as to his ability to
pay. Appellant has not demonstrated any attempt to enforce the fine and costs. An
attempt to enforce a fine, costs, or any other financial sanction will trigger due process
Licking County, Case No. 13-CA-119 6
and hearing requirements, see, e.g. Williams v. Illinois (1970), 399 U.S. 235, 90 S.Ct.
2018, 26 L.Ed.2d 586, and Tate v. Short (1971), 401 U.S. 395, 91 S.Ct. 668, 28 L.Ed.2d
130.”
{¶20} We find a trial court can impose a fine at sentencing without conducting a
hearing to determine the Appellant's ability to pay, but cannot order the Appellant
incarcerated for failure to pay the fine without conducting the hearing required under
R.C. 2947.14. As such, we reaffirm our holding in Chaney.
{¶21} Appellant was not given a hearing on his ability to pay. While the trial
court's order allows Appellant a reasonable time to make payment, it includes language
ordering Appellant incarcerated if the fine is not paid. We find this portion of the
sentencing entry does not comport with the statute. Nor does giving only $30 credit per
day comport with the statue which provides for a credit of $50 per day. Accordingly, we
sustain both of Appellant's assignments of error.
{¶22} The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the matter remanded to
the trial court for resentencing.
By: Hoffman, P.J.
Gwin, J. and
Wise, J. concur