[Cite as State v. Housley, 2020-Ohio-4489.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
MIAMI COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO :
:
Plaintiff-Appellee : Appellate Case No. 2020-CA-1
:
v. : Trial Court Case No. 2016-CR-348
:
TIMOTHY H. HOUSLEY : (Criminal Appeal from
: Common Pleas Court)
Defendant-Appellant :
:
...........
OPINION
Rendered on the 18th day of September, 2020.
...........
PAUL M. WATKINS, Atty. Reg. No. 0090868, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Miami
County Prosecutor’s Office, Safety Building, 201 West Main Street, Troy, Ohio 45373
Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
TIMOTHY H. HOUSLEY, #A730-882, P.O. Box 209, Orient, Ohio 43146
Defendant-Appellant, Pro Se
.............
DONOVAN, J.
-2-
{¶ 1} Timothy H. Housley appeals pro se from the trial court’s February 5, 2020
order denying his pro se motion to stay fines and court costs. We hereby affirm the
judgment of the trial court.
{¶ 2} Housley was indicted on June 23, 2016, on two counts of trafficking in drugs,
one count of illegal manufacture of drugs, and two counts of possession of drugs. On
October 28, 2016, Housley pled guilty to one count of trafficking in drugs, in violation of
R.C. 2925.03(A)(2)/(C)(7)(e), a felony of the second degree, and two counts of
possession of drugs, in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A)/(C)(7)(e), felonies of the third degree.
On November 30, 2016, he was sentenced to an aggregate term of five years. The trial
court’s sentencing entry stated that Housley was “to pay the costs herein” and that “no
fines [were] due” because he was indigent.
{¶ 3} Housley filed a motion to stay fines and costs on January 29, 2020.
Housley asserted that the trial court had found him indigent, that the clerk of courts’
actions to collect fines were “vindictive and vi[o]late[d] the order of the Court,” and that
the court’s order could “only be reevaluated upon the financial stat[u]s change of the
defendant.” Housley asserted that, when he is released from prison and obtains
employment, he “will follow any court order to pay any cost that the [court] deems
necessary at that juncture. But as of this moment the defendant is unable to pay any
cost to the court,” and he asked the court “to comply with the judgment entry.”
{¶ 4} In denying his motion, the trial court noted that the record of the case showed
that no fine was imposed, and the clerk had issued a bill for costs. The court concluded
that Housley had not shown good cause to stay the action of the clerk to collect court
costs.
-3-
{¶ 5} Housley asserts the following assignment of error:
THE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN IT’S [SIC] FEBRUARY
5, 2020 RULING WHEN IT ALLOWED THE CLERK OF COURT TO
ARBITRARILY TAKE ACTION THAT WAS CONTRARY TO IT’S [SIC]
COURT RULING HANDED DOWN ON NOVEMBER 30, 2016.
{¶ 6} Housley asserts that, in January 2020, the clerk of court notified him that he
had to pay a bill. He argues that the clerk “disobeyed” an order of the court and should
be held in “contempt.” According to Housley, “[f]or the clerk to take action against a court
determination, the Court was required to hold a hearing to determine whether the
defendant is able to pay financial sanctions or court costs.” Housley also asserts that the
court and the clerk “are taking vindictive predatory actions” against him.
{¶ 7} Attached to Housley’s brief were: the trial court’s November 30, 2016 entry
imposing sentence; the trial court’s entry denying Housley’s motion to stay fines and
costs; and a Final Entry issued by this Court in a prior appeal related to forfeiture of
property seized in connection with Housley’s case. See State v. Housley, 2d Dist. Miami
No. 2018-CA-4, 20180Ohio-4140. That entry stated:
Pursuant to the opinion of this court rendered on the 12th day of
October, 2018, the judgment of the trial court denying Appellant’s motion
for return of property is affirmed in part and reversed in part. The judgment
is reversed as to the trial court’s finding about its authority to order return of
the safe, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings on that issue.
In all other respects, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
Costs to be paid as follows: 50% by the State of Ohio and 50% by
-4-
the Appellant.
{¶ 8} In its brief, the State responds that the trial court’s order was not contrary to
law.
{¶ 9} We initially note that “a major distinction between fines and costs exists.”
Strattman v. Studt, 20 Ohio St.2d 95, 102, 253 N.E.2d 749 (1969). “[C]osts are taxed
against certain litigants for the purpose of lightening the burden on taxpayers financing
the court system,” while fines “serve a punitive, retributive, or rehabilitative purpose.” Id.
As noted above, in its sentencing entry, the trial court did not impose a fine due to
Housley’s indigence, but it ordered him to pay court costs.
{¶ 10} In State v. Taylor, Ohio Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-3514, __ N.E.3d __, the
Supreme Court of Ohio recently held that a “trial court was not required to consider a
defendant's ability to pay when ruling on a motion to waive, suspend, or modify court
costs” and that “Ohio's statutory scheme was not constitutionally infirm because it did not
require a court to consider a defendant's present or future ability to pay when ruling on a
motion to waive, suspend, or modify court costs.” Id. As such, the trial court was not
required to hold a hearing on Housley’s ability to pay.
{¶ 11} Further, the “bill” which Housley asserts the clerk of courts ordered him to
pay is not part of the record before us, and we cannot review it. Therefore, we conclude
that Housley’s assigned error lacks merit, and it is overruled.
{¶ 12} The order of the trial court overruling Housley’s motion to stay fines and
costs is affirmed.
.............
HALL, J. and WELBAUM, J., concur.
-5-
Copies sent to:
Paul M. Watkins
Timothy H. Housley
Hon. Jeannine N. Pratt