[Cite as State v. Richardson, 2024-Ohio-2840.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

LUCAS COUNTY

State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. L-24-1008

Appellee Trial Court No. CR0202203016

 

v.

Armon Richardson DECISION AND JUDGMENT

Appellant Decided: July 26, 2024

* * * * *

Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and

Lorrie J. Rendle, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Laurel A. Kendall, for appellant.

* * * * *

ZMUDA, J.

I. Introduction

{¶ 1} This matter is before the court on appeal from the Lucas County Court of 

Common Pleas judgment of December 18, 2023, imposing costs as part of sentencing.

For the reasons that follow, we reverse, in part, and vacate the discretionary costs ordered 

by the trial court.

II. Facts and Procedural History

{¶ 2} On December 6, 2022, appellant, Armon Richardson, was indicted on two 

counts of aggravated vehicular homicide, one count of aggravated vehicular assault, and 

one count of vehicular assault, all arising from a traffic accident on March 16, 2022. On 
2.

that date, appellant accelerated to 80-90 m.p.h. to beat a red light and struck another

vehicle as it attempted to turn, killing the driver and seriously injuring the driver’s 15-

year-old daughter. As a result of plea negotiations, appellant entered a guilty plea to one 

count of aggravated vehicular homicide in violation of R.C. 2903.06(A)(2)(a) and (B), a 

felony of the third degree, and one count of vehicular assault in violation of R.C. 

2903.08(A)(2)(b) and (C), a felony of the fourth degree. The state agreed to request 

dismissal of the remaining counts at sentencing. The trial court accepted the plea, found 

appellant guilty, and continued the matter for sentencing.

{¶ 3} On December 18, 2023, the trial court held a sentencing hearing. Appellant 

acknowledged his reckless conduct as a “terrible lapse in judgment” and acknowledged 

the pain caused to his victim’s families because of his actions. The trial court imposed an 

aggregate prison term of 72 months. The trial court also suspended appellant’s driver’s 

license for 30 years, and pursuant to the plea agreement, dismissed the remaining counts 

in the indictment. The trial court did not address costs at sentencing, but in the written 

sentencing entry, ordered the following concerning costs:

Defendant found to have, or reasonably may be expected to have, the means to pay 

all or part of the applicable costs of supervision, confinement, and prosecution as 

authorized by law. Defendant ordered to reimburse the State of Ohio and Lucas 

County for such costs. This order of reimbursement is a judgment enforceable 

pursuant to law by the parties in whose favor it is entered. Defendant further 

ordered to pay the costs assessed pursuant to R.C. 9.92(C), 2929.18 and 2951.021 

if not sentenced to ODRC. Notification pursuant to R.C. 2947.23 given.
3.

III. Assignment of Error

{¶ 4} Appellant raises the following assignment of error in this appeal:

I. The court improperly assigned costs of supervision, confinement and 

prosecution in the judgment entry of sentencing, but not at the sentencing 

hearing, and without regard to appellant’s ability to pay.

IV. Analysis

{¶ 5} The sole issue on appeal concerns the imposition of costs in the sentencing 

entry, after the trial court failed to address costs at the sentencing hearing. We will reverse 

if the imposition of costs is contrary to law. State v. Ali, 2024-Ohio-486, ¶ 6 (6th Dist.), 

citing State v. Velesquez, 2023-Ohio-1100, ¶ 6 (6th Dist.), quoting State v. Ivey, 2021-

Ohio-2138, ¶ 7 (6th Dist.); R.C. 2953.08(A)(4) and (G)(2)(b).

{¶ 6} The parties concede that costs of prosecution are mandatory costs, pursuant 

to R.C. 2947.23(A)(1)(a). Additionally, the costs of supervision are not “applicable” in 

appellant’s case, as he was sentenced to a prison term. See State v. Eaton, 2020-Ohio3208, ¶ 33 (6th Dist.). 

{¶ 7} As to the remaining costs, the cost of confinement, the state acknowledges 

our precedent, reversing these costs where the trial court failed to impose them at the time 

of sentencing. See State v. Henderson, 2023-Ohio-4576, ¶ 17 (6th Dist.); Ali at ¶ 11, 

Velesquez at ¶ 12-13; State v. Stovall, 2019-Ohio-4287, ¶ 37 (6th Dist.). R.C. 

2929.18(A)(5)(ii) permits a trial court to impose costs of confinement as part of sentence. 

However, these costs must be imposed “on the record at the sentencing hearing and in the 

judgment entry.” State v. Patterson, 2024-Ohio-2198, ¶ 13 (6th Dist.), citing Ali at ¶ 8.
4.

Because the trial court failed to impose costs of confinement at sentencing, it could not 

add those costs to the judgment entry. Patterson at ¶ 13. 

{¶ 8} Accordingly, we find the sole assignment of error well-taken, in part, as to 

the imposition of costs of supervision and confinement. We otherwise affirm the 

judgment as to the imposition of mandatory costs of prosecution pursuant to R.C. 

2947.23

V. Conclusion

{¶ 9} We affirm the judgment, in part, and reverse only as to the imposition of 

discretionary costs. We vacate the portion of the judgment imposing costs of supervision 

and confinement. The parties are ordered to split the costs of this appeal pursuant to 

App.R. 24.

Judgment affirmed,

in part, reversed,

in part, and vacated.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. 

See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.

Christine E. Mayle, J. ____________________________

 JUDGE

Gene A. Zmuda, J. 

____________________________

Myron C. Duhart, 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/.