[Cite as Maumee v. Wallace, 2020-Ohio-2652.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LUCAS COUNTY
State of Ohio/City of Maumee Court of Appeals No. L-19-1093
Appellee Trial Court No. 19CRB00141
v.
Stacy S. Wallace DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: April 24, 2020
*****
Sarah R. Anjum, for appellant.
*****
PIETRYKOWSKI, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Stacy Wallace, appeals the judgment of the Maumee Municipal
Court, convicting her of one count of attempted petty theft in violation of R.C. 2913.02
and 2923.02, a misdemeanor of the second degree, and sentencing her to pay a fine of
$272 plus court costs. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
I. Facts and Procedural Background
{¶ 2} On February 13, 2019, a criminal complaint was filed charging appellant
with one count of theft in violation of R.C. 2913.02, a misdemeanor of the first degree,
based upon the allegation that appellant took approximately $72 in merchandise from a
Meijer store.
{¶ 3} On February 26, 2019, appellant appeared for arraignment, at which she was
determined to be indigent. A public defender was appointed for her, and she entered an
initial plea of not guilty.
{¶ 4} On February 28, 2019, appellant entered into a plea agreement with the city
whereby she agreed to plead no contest to the amended charge of attempted petty theft in
violation of R.C. 2913.02 and 2923.02, a misdemeanor of the second degree. The trial
court accepted the plea, found her guilty, and continued the matter for preparation of a
presentence investigation report.
{¶ 5} The sentencing hearing was held on April 4, 2019. At the hearing, counsel
for appellant stated in mitigation that she has a degree in medical billing and coding, and
that she has stable employment. Counsel also offered that appellant has acknowledged
that her actions were wrong. The court then sentenced appellant to 90 days in jail, with
70 days suspended, and the remaining 20 days to be served on electronic home
monitoring. The court found that appellant was indigent for purposes of the fees
associated with the electronic home monitoring. The court also ordered appellant to be
2.
placed on inactive probation for three years. Finally, the court ordered appellant to pay a
fine of $272 plus court costs.
II. Assignment of Error
{¶ 6} Appellant has timely appealed her judgment of conviction, and now asserts
one assignment of error for our review:
1. The trial court erred in imposing fines on Appellant after finding
she is indigent.
III. Analysis
{¶ 7} We review misdemeanor sentences for an abuse of discretion. State v.
Heidelberg, 2019-Ohio-2257, 138 N.E.3d 537, ¶ 23 (6th Dist.). An abuse of discretion
connotes that the trial court’s attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. State
v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151, 157, 404 N.E.2d 144 (1980).
{¶ 8} In her assignment of error, appellant argues that because the trial court found
her indigent for purposes of the costs of electronic home monitoring, it should have
ordered her to serve community service in lieu of paying a fine. Alternatively, she argues
that the fine should be waived.
{¶ 9} R.C. 2929.28(A) provides that “In addition to imposing court costs pursuant
to section 2947.23 of the Revised Code, the court imposing a sentence upon an offender
for a misdemeanor, including a minor misdemeanor, may sentence the offender to any
financial sanction or combination of financial sanctions authorized under this section.”
3.
One of those financial sanctions is a fine of not more than $750 for a misdemeanor of the
second degree. R.C. 2929.28(A)(2)(a)(ii).
{¶ 10} R.C. 2929.28(B) provides, “If the court determines a hearing is necessary,
the court may hold a hearing to determine whether the offender is able to pay the
financial sanction imposed pursuant to this section or court costs or is likely in the future
to be able to pay the sanction or costs.” “If the court determines that the offender is
indigent and unable to pay the financial sanction or court costs, the court shall consider
imposing and may impose a term of community service under division (A) of section
2929.27 of the Revised Code in lieu of imposing a financial sanction or court costs.” Id.
{¶ 11} “Ohio courts have interpreted R.C. 2929.28(B) to mean that a hearing to
determine ability to pay is not required; however, there must, at minimum, be some
evidence in the record that the court considered the defendant’s present and future ability
to pay the sanction imposed.” Maumee v. Hensley, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-18-1205, 2019-
Ohio-2050, ¶ 12, quoting State v. Rhoda, 6th Dist. Fulton No. F-06-007, 2006-Ohio-
6291, ¶ 15.
{¶ 12} In Hensley, we determined that the record was devoid of any indication that
the court considered the defendant’s present and future ability to pay. Id. at ¶ 13. In that
case, the defendant was homeless, was suffering from physical and mental health issues,
and had been drug dependent for decades. Further, there was no discussion of the
defendant’s education, employment history, ability to work, or alternative sources of
income. Id.
4.
{¶ 13} Here, in contrast, appellant stated in mitigation that she has a degree in
medical billing and coding and has stable employment. Moreover, prior to imposing the
sentence, the trial court announced that it considered the statements made in mitigation.
Therefore, we hold that there is some evidence in the record that the trial court considered
appellant’s present and future ability to pay, and thus the trial court did not abuse its
discretion when it imposed the $272 fine.
{¶ 14} Accordingly, appellant’s assignment of error is not well-taken.
IV. Conclusion
{¶ 15} For the foregoing reasons, we find that substantial justice has been done the
party complaining, and the judgment of the Maumee Municipal Court is affirmed.
Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24.
Judgment affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. _______________________________
JUDGE
Christine E. Mayle, J.
_______________________________
Gene A. Zmuda, P.J. JUDGE
CONCUR.
_______________________________
JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.
5.