Case Title: State ex rel. Martin v. Russo

Citation: 2020-Ohio-829

Docket Number: 2019-0903

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2020-03-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 
ex rel. Martin v. Russo, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-829.] 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an 
advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested to 
promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 
South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other 
formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before 
the opinion is published. 
 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2020-OHIO-829 
THE STATE EX REL. MARTIN, APPELLANT, v. RUSSO, JUDGE, ET AL., 
APPELLEES. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Martin v. Russo, Slip Opinion No.  
2020-Ohio-829.] 
Mandamus—R.C. 2947.23—Relator had adequate remedy at law by way of appeal 
of ruling on motion to waive, suspend, or modify court costs—Court of 
appeals’ judgment dismissing complaint affirmed. 
(No. 2019-0903—Submitted December 10, 2019—Decided March 10, 2020.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 108231, 
2019-Ohio-2242. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Appellant, Tramaine Edward Martin, appeals the Eighth District 
Court of Appeals’ judgment dismissing his petition for a writ of mandamus against 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
appellees, Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Judges Joseph D. Russo and 
Michael J. Russo (“the judges”).  For the reasons below, we affirm. 
BACKGROUND 
{¶ 2} In November 2009, Martin entered guilty pleas to one count of 
receiving stolen property and one count of drug possession.  Judge Joseph Russo 
sentenced Martin in January 2010, imposing concurrent 12-month prison sentences 
and ordering Martin to pay court costs.  Martin did not appeal.  However, in April 
2010, he filed a motion to vacate court costs, which the trial court denied. 
{¶ 3} In June 2010, Martin entered guilty pleas to one count of failure to 
comply and one count of receiving stolen property.  Judge Michael Russo sentenced 
Martin to an aggregate term of 24-months’ imprisonment, to be served concurrently 
with Martin’s prior sentence, and ordered him to pay court costs. Martin’s 
convictions were affirmed on appeal.  State v. Martin, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 
95281, 2011-Ohio-222. 
{¶ 4} In May 2018, Martin filed motions in each criminal case asking the 
judges to vacate their orders imposing court costs.  The motions were denied. 
{¶ 5} In February 2019, Martin filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in 
the Eighth District seeking to compel the judges to vacate their orders imposing 
court costs and to hold hearings on Martin’s ability to pay court costs under R.C. 
2947.23.1  The judges filed a motion to dismiss the petition.  In response, Martin 
moved for summary judgment and asked the court to strike the motion to dismiss. 
The Eighth District denied Martin’s motion and granted the judges’ motion to 
dismiss.  8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 108231, 2019-Ohio-2242. 
{¶ 6} Martin appealed and the case is fully briefed. 
 
 
                                                 
1. The petition mistakenly cites R.C. 2947.36(B), which does not exist.  But Martin’s other filings 
indicate that his arguments are based on R.C. 2947.23(B). 
January Term, 2020 
 
3
ANALYSIS 
{¶ 7} This court reviews the dismissal of a mandamus petition under Civ.R. 
12(B)(6) de novo.  State ex rel. Brown v. Nusbaum, 152 Ohio St.3d 284, 2017-Ohio-
9141, 95 N.E.3d 365, ¶ 10.  Dismissal is appropriate only if it “appear[s] beyond 
doubt from the complaint that the relator can prove no set of facts warranting relief, 
after all factual allegations of the complaint are presumed true and all reasonable 
inferences are made in the relator’s favor.”  State ex rel. Zander v. Judge of Summit 
Cty. Common Pleas Court, 156 Ohio St. 3d 466, 2019-Ohio-1704, 129 N.E.3d 401, 
¶ 4. 
{¶ 8} To be entitled to mandamus relief, Martin must establish by clear and 
convincing evidence (1) a clear legal right to the requested relief, (2) a clear legal 
duty on the part of the respondent to provide it, and (3) the lack of an adequate 
remedy in the ordinary course of the law.  State ex rel. Love v. O’Donnell, 150 Ohio 
St.3d 378, 2017-Ohio-5659, 81 N.E.3d 1250, ¶ 3. 
{¶ 9} Martin seeks an order directing the judges to vacate their 2010 orders 
imposing court costs.  “R.C. 2947.23 requires a trial court to assess costs against 
all criminal defendants, even if the defendant is indigent.”  State v. Clinton, 153 
Ohio St.3d 422, 2017-Ohio-9423, 108 N.E.3d 1, ¶ 239.  However, the trial court 
“retains jurisdiction to waive, suspend, or modify the payment of the costs of 
prosecution * * *, at the time of sentencing or any time thereafter.”  R.C. 
2947.23(C).  This is true regardless of whether the costs were imposed before or 
after the current version of R.C. 2947.23(C) took effect.2 
                                                 
2. In its decision dismissing Martin’s mandamus petition, the Eighth District held that the respondent 
judges did not retain jurisdiction to modify the 2010 cost orders, relying on this court’s decision in 
State v. Braden, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2018-Ohio-5079, __ N.E.3d __, ¶ 24 (for sentences entered prior 
to March 23, 2013, the trial court lacks jurisdiction to reconsider its own final order).  However, this 
court subsequently granted reconsideration in Braden and held that “R.C. 2947.23(C) authorizes 
trial courts to waive, suspend or modify the payment of court costs imposed both before and after 
its effective date.”  State v. Braden, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2019-Ohio-4204, __ N.E.3d __, ¶ 31. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
{¶ 10} This statute neither establishes that the judges have a clear legal duty 
to provide the relief that Martin seeks nor that he has a clear legal right to receive 
it.  A decision whether to waive, suspend, or modify an order requiring the payment 
of court costs is in the discretion of the trial court.  See State v. Threatt, 108 Ohio 
St.3d 277, 2006-Ohio-905, 843 N.E.2d 164, ¶ 24 (interpreting an earlier version of 
R.C. 2947.23 and holding that “a court’s denial of an indigent criminal defendant’s 
motion for waiver of payment of costs is reviewed under an abuse-of-
discretion standard”); see also State v. Braden, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2019-Ohio-4204, 
__ N.E.3d __, ¶ 30 (R.C. 2947.23 “gives the trial court continuing jurisdiction to 
waive, suspend or modify, in its discretion, the payment of costs if costs remain”).  
“ ‘Mandamus will not lie to control judicial discretion, even if that discretion is 
abused.’ ” State ex rel. Richfield v. Laria, 138 Ohio St.3d 168, 2014-Ohio-243, 4 
N.E.3d 1040, ¶ 11, quoting State ex rel. Rashada v. Pianka, 112 Ohio St.3d 44, 
2006-Ohio-6366, 857 N.E.2d 1220, ¶ 3. 
{¶ 11} Moreover, Martin cannot establish that he lacks an adequate remedy 
at law by which to challenge the trial courts’ determinations under R.C. 2947.23.  
Martin could have appealed the denial of his May 2018 motions to vacate his court 
costs.  State ex rel. Galloway v. Lucas Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 130 Ohio St.3d 
206, 2011-Ohio-5259, 957 N.E.2d 11, ¶ 4.  Indeed, defendants regularly appeal a 
trial court’s denial of a motion to waive, suspend, or modify court costs under R.C. 
2947.43.  See, e.g., State v. Jordan, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 18AP-870, 2019-Ohio-
2536; State v. Lundy, 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-18-11, 2018-Ohio-2243; State v. 
Sanders, 4th Dist. Pickaway No. 16A25, 2017-Ohio-8088; State v. Dunson, 2d Dist. 
Montgomery No. 26990, 2016-Ohio-8365;  but see State v. Goodman, 11th Dist. 
Trumbull No. 2014-T-0047, 2014-Ohio-4884, ¶ 1, 17 (denial of a defendant’s 
motion to establish a payment plan for court costs is not a final, appealable order).  
As such, Martin is not entitled to a writ ordering the judges to vacate the court-costs 
orders. 
January Term, 2020 
 
5
{¶ 12} To the extent Martin seeks an order directing the judges to hold 
ability-to-pay hearings under R.C. 2947.23, he similarly cannot satisfy any of the 
elements for a writ of mandamus.  R.C. 2947.23(B) states that if a trial court “has 
reason to believe” that a defendant has failed to pay a judgment of costs imposed 
under R.C. 2947.23(A), it “shall hold a hearing to determine whether to order the 
offender to perform community service for that failure.”  This statute does not, 
however, require courts to hold an ability-to-pay hearing before deciding whether 
to waive, suspend, or modify costs.  Here, Martin asked the judges to vacate their 
initial orders imposing court costs. He did not ask them to consider imposing 
community service in lieu of costs.  And, in any event, Martin had an adequate 
remedy at law by which to raise his ability-to-pay-hearing argument by appealing 
the trial courts’ orders denying his motions to vacate costs. 
{¶ 13} Finally, Martin suggests that the court-costs orders must be vacated 
because he has already served the prison terms imposed in the 2010 orders.  But 
Martin cites no authority for the proposition that costs must be collected before a 
defendant has completed any associated term of imprisonment.  Accordingly, we 
reject this argument. 
{¶ 14} For these reasons, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, and 
DONNELLY, JJ., concur. 
STEWART, J., not participating. 
_________________ 
Tramaine Edward Martin, pro se. 
Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and James 
E. Moss, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellees. 
_________________