Title: State v. Smith

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State v. Smith, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-781.] 
 
 
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. 2012-OHIO-781 
THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. SMITH, APPELLANT. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State v. Smith, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-781.] 
Criminal law—Ripeness—R.C. 2947.23(A)(1)—Trial court’s failure to inform 
offender that community service may be imposed if the offender fails to 
pay court costs presents issue ripe for review even where record does not 
show that offender has failed to pay costs or that court has ordered 
community service for failure to pay. 
(No. 2011-0811—Submitted December 7, 2011—Decided March 1, 2012.) 
CERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Warren County,  
No. CA2010-06-057, 2011-Ohio-1188. 
__________________ 
SYLLABUS OF THE COURT 
A sentencing court's failure to inform an offender, as required by R.C. 
2947.23(A)(1), that community service could be imposed if the offender 
fails to pay the costs of prosecution or court costs presents an issue ripe for 
review even though the record does not show that the offender has failed 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
to pay such costs or that the trial court has ordered the offender to perform 
community service as a result of failure to pay. 
__________________ 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J. 
I. Introduction 
{¶ 1} Appellant, Timothy Smith, pleaded guilty to forgery under R.C. 
2913.31(A)(3), a fifth-degree felony.  The trial court accepted Smith’s plea and 
found him guilty.  The court sentenced Smith to five years of community control 
and required Smith to pay court costs, the fee for his court-appointed attorney, 
and $4,857 in restitution.  However, the court did not inform Smith that if he 
failed to pay court costs, the court could require him to perform community 
service pursuant to R.C. 2947.23(A)(1). 
{¶ 2} Smith appealed, asserting four assignments of error, including an 
assertion that the trial court erred and abused its discretion when it failed to notify 
him pursuant to R.C. 2947.23(A)(1) that if he failed to pay court costs, the trial 
court could require him to perform community service.  State v. Smith, 12th Dist. 
No. CA2010-06-057, 2011-Ohio-1188, 2011 WL 882182, ¶ 25-26.  The court of 
appeals refused to consider this assignment of error on its merits, holding that the 
issue was not ripe for review until the defendant fails to pay costs or a court 
imposes community service as a consequence for failing to pay court costs.  Id. at 
¶ 32.  However, the court of appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment to the 
extent it determined the clerk of court may have charged Smith certain costs that 
were not permitted by law, and remanded the cause to the trial court to determine 
whether these costs were properly imposed.  Id at ¶ 58-59, 68. 
{¶ 3} Smith did not file a discretionary appeal in this court.  However, he 
did file a motion in the court of appeals to certify a conflict.  Smith alleged that 
the court of appeals’ holding that a trial court’s failure to notify under R.C. 
2947.23(A)(1) was not ripe for review  conflicted with the Fourth District Court 
January Term, 2012 
3 
 
of Appeals’ decision in State v. Moss, 186 Ohio App.3d 787, 2010-Ohio-1135, 
930 N.E.2d 838, and the Fifth District Court of Appeals’ decision in State v. 
Dansby, 5th Dist. No. 08 AP 06 0047, 2009-Ohio-2975, 2009 WL 1763679. 
{¶ 4} The court of appeals issued an order certifying that a conflict 
existed.  We agreed and ordered the parties to brief the following question:  
 
 
[W]hether a sentencing court's failure to inform an 
offender, as required by R.C. 2947.23(A)(1), that community 
service could be imposed if the offender fails to pay the costs of 
prosecution or ‘court costs’ presents an issue ripe for review even 
though the record does not show that the offender has failed to pay 
such costs or that the trial court has ordered the offender to 
perform community service as a result of failure to pay. 
 
129 Ohio St.3d 1426, 2011-Ohio-3740, 951 N.E.2d 89. 
{¶ 5} Smith argues that the trial court’s failure to provide him the 
community-service notification is ripe for review even though he has not yet filed 
to pay court costs or the court has not yet imposed community service.  The state 
argues that trial court’s failure to notify is not ripe for review until the defendant 
fails to pay court costs or a trial court imposes community control. 
II. Analysis 
{¶ 6} We begin our analysis by examining R.C. 2947.23(A)(1), which 
provides: 
 
In all criminal cases, including violations of ordinances, the 
judge or magistrate shall include in the sentence the costs of 
prosecution, including any costs under section 2947.231 of the 
Revised Code, and render a judgment against the defendant for 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
such costs. At the time the judge or magistrate imposes sentence, 
the judge or magistrate shall notify the defendant of both of the 
following: 
(a) If the defendant fails to pay that judgment or fails to 
timely make payments towards that judgment under a payment 
schedule approved by the court, the court may order the defendant 
to perform community service in an amount of not more than forty 
hours per month until the judgment is paid or until the court is 
satisfied that the defendant is in compliance with the approved 
payment schedule. 
 
(Emphasis added.)  
{¶ 7} The Twelfth District Court of Appeals below declined to address 
the trial court’s failure to notify Smith of the potential imposition of community 
service because 
 
the record does not demonstrate that Smith has failed to pay the 
court costs or the cost for his court-appointed counsel, or that the 
trial court has ordered him to perform community service. If Smith 
fails to pay those costs in the future, then under R.C. 2947.23(B), 
the trial court will be required to hold a hearing regarding his 
failure to pay and may, in its discretion, order him to perform 
community service. However, because these events have yet to 
happen and may not ever happen, Smith's claim regarding 
community service is not yet ripe for review. 
 
State v. Smith, 2011-Ohio-1188, ¶ 33. 
January Term, 2012 
5 
 
{¶ 8} By contrast, the Fourth District Court of Appeals in Moss, 186 
Ohio App.3d 787, 2010-Ohio-1135, 930 N.E.2d 838, ¶ 20, has held that the trial 
court’s failure to provide the community-service notification pursuant to R.C. 
2947.23(A)(1) is ripe for review.  The court reasoned that the community-service 
notification in R.C. 2947.23(A)(1) is “mandatory.”  Id. at ¶ 21; see also Dansby, 
2009-Ohio-2975, and State v. Cardamone,  8th Dist. No. 94405, 2011-Ohio-818, 
2011 WL 676080, ¶ 13-14. 
{¶ 9} When interpreting a statute, a court must first look to its language 
and apply it as written if the meaning is unambiguous.  State v. Lowe, 112 Ohio 
St.3d 507, 2007-Ohio-606, 861 N.E.2d 512, ¶ 9.  “[T]he word ‘shall’ shall be 
construed as mandatory unless there appears a clear and unequivocal legislative 
intent that [it] receive a construction other than [its] ordinary usage.”  Ohio Civ. 
Rights Comm. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 99 Ohio St.3d 522, 2003-Ohio-
4358, 794 N.E.2d 56, ¶ 4, quoting Dorrian v. Scioto Conservancy Dist., 27 Ohio 
St.2d 102, 271 N.E.2d 834 (1971), paragraph one of the syllabus. 
{¶ 10} In R.C. 2947.23(A)(1), the General Assembly’s use of the 
language “at the time the judge * * * imposes sentence, the judge * * * shall 
notify” clearly registers an intent that this notice is mandatory and that a court is 
to provide this notice at sentencing.  Therefore, a reviewing court’s authority to 
consider a trial court’s failure to provide this notice does not first require a 
defendant to fail to pay court costs or a court to impose community service.  Thus, 
we agree with the holdings in Moss, Dansby, and Cardamone.  Accordingly, we 
answer the certified question in the affirmative and hold that a sentencing court’s 
failure to inform an offender, as required by R.C. 2947.23(A)(1), that community 
service could be imposed if the offender fails to pay the costs of prosecution or 
court costs presents an issue ripe for review even though the record does not show 
that the offender has failed to pay such costs or that the trial court has ordered the 
offender to perform community service as a result of failure to pay.  We also note 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
that because a trial court must provide this notice at sentencing, the time to appeal 
a trial court’s failure to provide the notice required by R.C. 2947.23(A)(1) begins 
to run from the date of the trial court’s sentencing entry.  See State v. Threatt, 108 
Ohio St.3d 277, 2006-Ohio-905, 843 N.E.2d 164, paragraph three of the syllabus 
(a sentencing entry is a final, appealable order as to costs). 
III. Conclusion 
{¶ 11} In the instant case, the court of appeals declined to address Smith’s 
second assignment of error, holding that the trial court’s failure to provide Smith 
the community-service notice required by R.C. 2947.23(A)(1) was not ripe for 
review because Smith had not yet failed to pay court costs.  Because we have held 
that this failure to notify is ripe for review regardless of whether a defendant has 
failed to pay costs, we reverse that portion of the court of appeals’ judgment and 
remand this cause to the court of appeals for it consider Smith’s second 
assignment of error in accordance with this opinion. 
Judgment reversed in part  
and cause remanded. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, CUPP, and 
MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
David P. Fornshell, Warren County Prosecuting Attorney, and Michael 
Greer, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
Diehl & Hubbell, L.L.C., and Martin E. Hubbell, for appellant. 
______________________