[Cite as State v. Haynes , 2014-Ohio-2675.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR CLARK COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO. 2013 CA 90

v. : T.C. NO. 10 CR 517 10 CR 560 MICHAEL HAYNES : 10 CR 732 Defendant-Appellant : (Criminal appeal from Common Pleas Court) :

:

. . . . . . . . . . O P I N I O N

Rendered on the 20th day of June , 2014.

. . . . . . . . . . LISA M. FANNIN, Atty. Reg. No. 0082337, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, 50 E. Columbia Street, 4 th Floor, Springfield, Ohio 45501 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee MICHAEL HAYNES, #645111, Marion Correctional In stitute, P. O. Box 57, Marion, Ohio 43301 Defendant-Appellant

. . . . . . . . . . FROELICH, P.J.[Cite as State v. Haynes , 2014-Ohio-2675.] {¶ 1} Michael Haynes appeals from a judg ment of the Clark County Court of Common Pleas, which denied his motion to correct the sentences it imposed in 2010 in

three cases. {¶ 2} For the following reasons, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed. {¶ 3} On December 15, 2010, Haynes was convicted on his guilty pleas on two counts of robbery in Clark C. P. No. 10-CR-517, one count of burglary in Clark C.P. No. 10-CR-560, and of one count of robbery in Clark C.P. No. 10-CR-732. He was sentenced to a four-year term on each offense, to be serv ed consecutively, for an aggregate term of 16 years. In each case, the court ordered Ha ynes “to pay all costs of prosecution, Court appointed counsel costs and any fees pe rmitted pursuant to Re vised Code Section 2929.18(A)(4).” He did not appeal from his convictions. {¶ 4} In March 2013, Haynes filed a Motion to Correct Sentence in each of the three cases. While these motions were pending, Haynes filed motions for leave to file delayed appeal with this cour t, which raised some of the same issues. In September 2013, the trial court denied the motions to correct sentence, finding no error in the sentences. In October 2013, this court denied the motions for delayed appeal, and Hayn es filed notices of appeal from the trial court’s denials of his motions to correct sentence. {¶ 5} Haynes raises six assignments of e rror on appeal. His arguments fall into two categories. The first category consists of assignments five a nd six, which state: Trial court erred in sentencing to consecutive sentences without making findings pursuant to Ohio Revised Code 2929.14.

Trial court erred in not determinin g present and future ability to pay before imposing financial sanctions.[Cite as State v. Haynes , 2014-Ohio-2675.] {¶ 6} Under these assignments of error, Haynes asserts that the trial court failed to make required findings re lated to the imposition of consecutive sentences, and that the trial court did not examine his present and future ability to pay before imposing financial sanctions. He acknowledges that he has not previously raised th ese arguments, but he asserts that the trial court committed plain error with respect to these issues, and thus they have “[been] preserved for further Appellate review at a later time.” {¶ 7} In order to constitute plain error, th e error must be an obvious defect in the trial proceedings, and the error must have affected substantial rights. State v. Barnes , 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 2002-Ohio-68, 759 N.E.2d 1240. Under the plain error doctrine, errors or defects affecting substantial ri ghts may be noticed on appeal although they were not brought

to the attention of the trial court. Crim.R. 52(B). The plain error doctrine does not extend the period during which a defendant may appeal from the trial court’s judgment; it simply allows an appellate cour t to review an error that was not objected to at trial. The “obvious”

nature of such an error conflicts with any assertion that an ex tension is or should be provided

in such a circumstance. {¶ 8} Res judicata bars relitigation of a matter that was raised or could have been raised on direct appeal, State v. Griffin , 138 Ohio St.3d 108, 2013-Ohio-5481, 4 N.E.3d 989. Otherwise, appeals coul d be filed indefinitely. Ha ynes’s arguments under these assignments fall within that category, and are barred by res judicata. {¶ 9} Further, Haynes’s arguments under th ese assignments of error are without merit. In most cases, a trial court is not requi red to give reasons explaining its findings with respect to the imposition of consecutive sentences, nor is it required to “recite any ‘magic’ or ‘talismanic’ words when imposing consecutive sent ences,” so long as the record reflects that4 the court made the findings required by the statute. See, e.g., State v. Back , 2d Dist. Clark No. 2013-CA-62, 2014-Ohio-1656, ¶ 8; State v. Boyle , 2d Dist. Greene No. 2013-CA-43, 2014-Ohio-1271, ¶ 10. {¶ 10} With respect to financial sanctions or costs and the trial court’s alleged failure to determine whether Hayn es had the ability to pay, we observe that each of the trial court’s judgments ordere d Haynes “to pay all costs of pr osecution, Court appointed counsel costs and any fees permitted pursuant to [R .C.] 2929.18(A)(4).” None of the records indicates how much, if any amount , Haynes was actually required to pay. Further, in Clark C.P. No. 10-CR-517, $2,100 that was confiscated from Haynes by the Springfield Police Department was seized “to be applied toward the court costs imposed on all of the above

cases.” Because the records do not establis h that Haynes was ordered to pay financial

sanctions that exceeded the amount confiscated from him, we have no basis to conclude that the trial court erred in failing to more closely examine his ability to pay. Moreover, court costs are not financial sanctions, and thus a trial court need not consider a defendant’s ability to pay before imposing such costs. State v. Lux , 2d Dist. Miami No. 2010-CA-30, 2012-Ohio-112, ¶45; Columbus v. Kiner , 10th Dist. Franklin No. 11AP-543, 2011-Ohio-6462, ¶ 4. Further, since March 2013, “[t] he court retains juri sdiction to waive, suspend, or modify the payment of the costs of prosecution, including any costs under section 2947.231 of the Revised Code, at th e time of sentencing or at any time thereafter.” R.C. 2974.23(C). {¶ 11} The fifth and sixth assign ments of error are overruled. {¶ 12} The first, second, third, and four th assignments of error state:[Cite as State v. Haynes , 2014-Ohio-2675.] Trial court abused its discretion by entering an incorrect entry of sentencing. The trial court erred in not advising of right to appeal pursuant to Criminal Rule 32(B). Trial court failed to properly impose post-release control pursuant to Ohio Revised Code 2967.28. Trial court erred by not considering the necessary factors set forth in Ohio Revised Code §2929.11, and 2929.12. {¶ 13} Under these assignments of error, Haynes raises issues with respect to the trial court’s sentencing entries and whether the court made the nece ssary findings before imposing the sentences that it did. Haynes acknowle dges that he raised these same issues in his motions for delayed app eal, which we overruled. {¶ 14} As we discussed above, the issues rais ed in Haynes’s assignments of error could have been raised on direct appeal, and ar e barred by res judicata, regardless of whether they might be characterized as plain error. The time for filing a direct appeal is long past, App.R. 4(A), so any appeal coul d be taken only with leave of this court. App.R. 5(A). Having denied Haynes’s motions for leave to appeal, wherein he attempted to raise these matters, we will not consider these issues. {¶ 15} The first, second, third, and fourth assignments of error are overruled. {¶ 16} The judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.

. . . . . . . . . . DONOVAN, J. and HALL, J., concur.[Cite as State v. Haynes , 2014-Ohio-2675.] Copies mailed to:

Lisa M. Fannin Michael Haynes Hon. Richard J. O’Neill