[Cite as State v. Holder, 2018-Ohio-3337.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
MADISON COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, :
Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2018-02-006
: OPINION
- vs - 8/20/2018
:
LAWRENCE HOLDER, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM MADISON COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Case No. CRI 20170056
Stephen J. Pronai, Madison County Prosecuting Attorney, Rachel M. Price, Nicholas A.
Adkins, 59 North Main Street, London, Ohio 43140, for plaintiff-appellee
Patrick T. Clark, Assistant State Public Defender, 250 East Broad Street, Suite 1400,
Columbus, Ohio 43215, for defendant-appellant
RINGLAND, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Lawrence Holder, appeals the decision of the Madison
County Court of Common Pleas, denying his motion to terminate court costs. For the
reasons detailed below, we affirm.
{¶ 2} Holder pled guilty to one count of felonious assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11
related to a physical altercation he was involved in while incarcerated in the Madison
Madison CA2018-02-006
Correctional Institution. On October 23, 2017, the trial court sentenced Holder to two years in
prison and ordered him to pay $1,338.80 costs for prosecution. Holder did not file a direct
appeal.
{¶ 3} On February 5, 2018, Holder moved to terminate court costs, arguing that he is
indigent and had no current or future ability to pay costs. The trial court denied Holder's
motion. Holder now appeals the trial court's decision, raising a single assignment of error for
review:
{¶ 4} THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY SUMMARILY DENYING
LAWRENCE HOLDER'S MOTION TO TERMINATE HIS COURT COSTS WITHOUT
CONSIDERATION OF CURRENT OR FUTURE ABILITY TO PAY THOSE COSTS IN
VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION. SIXTH AND
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION; R.C. 2947.23;
FULLER V. THREATT, 108 OHIO ST.3D 277, 2006-OHIO-905; 843 N.E.2D 164; STATE V.
DUNSON, 2D DIST. MONTGOMERY NO.26990, 2016-OHIO-8365; STATE V. COPELAND,
2D DIST. MONTGOMERY NO. 26842, 2016-OHIO-7797.
{¶ 5} In his sole assignment of error, Holder argues the trial court erred by denying
his motion to terminate court costs without determining his ability to pay. We disagree.
{¶ 6} Our standard of review on this issue is whether the imposition of costs and
financial sanctions was contrary to law. State v. Collins, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2014-11-
135, 2015-Ohio-3710, ¶ 30 ("[a]n 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"); State v. Welninski, 6th Dist. Wood Nos. WD-16-039 and WD-16-040, 2018-Ohio-778,
¶ 110.
{¶ 7} With regard to the costs of prosecution, the Ohio Supreme Court has held that
R.C. 2947.23 requires a trial court to assess costs against all criminal defendants, even if the
-2-
Madison CA2018-02-006
defendant is indigent. State v. White, 103 Ohio St.3d 580, 2004-Ohio-5989, ¶ 8. As a result,
the trial court did not err by imposing the costs of prosecution against Holder.
{¶ 8} However, we also note that the trial court may waive the payment of costs
imposed if the trial court finds that the defendant is indigent. Id. at ¶ 14; State v. Brannon,
12th Dist. Butler No. CA2016-05-096, 2017-Ohio-628, ¶ 37; State v. Wright, 12th Dist.
Fayette No. CA2017-10-021, 2018-Ohio-1982, ¶ 48. Nevertheless, contrary to Holder's
argument otherwise, the trial court did not err by denying his motion. In this case, Holder had
recently been sentenced and ordered to pay court costs. During the plea and sentencing
hearing, Holder stated that he was not employed in the penitentiary, had no income, and was
subject to a "23-and-1 lock down for the next three years." There is no evidence that
Holder's financial situation has become any worse than it was at the time of his sentencing
hearing. Though Holder did not have income at the time of sentencing, nor at the time of the
filing of his motion, we note that the decision to waive costs is discretionary with the trial
court. As a result, we find the trial court did not err by denying Holder's request to terminate
court costs. Appellant's assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 9} Judgment affirmed.
S. POWELL, P.J., and HENDRICKSON, J., concur.
-3-
State v. Holder
Combined Opinion