[Cite as State v. Lieb , 2023

- Ohio

- 574.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ERIE COUNTY

State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. E

- 22

- 025

Appellee Trial Court No. 2021

- CR

- 141

v.

Adam Lieb DECISION AND JUDGMENT

Appellant Decided: February 24, 2023

* * * * *

Kevin J. Baxter, Erie County Prosecuting Attorney, and Kristin R. Palmer, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Anthony J. Richardson, II, for appellant.

* * * * *

OSOWIK, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant
, Adam Lieb
, app eals the April 29, 2022 judgment of the Erie

County Court of Common Pleas sentencing him to 36 months in prison and a $7,500 fine2

.

for a violation of R.C. 2907.21 (A)(3)(a) and (C), Compelling Prostitution (Count 11 of

the indictment) , 18 months in prison and a $2,500 fine for a violation of R.C.2923.02(A)

and R.C. 2907.21(A)(1) and (C), Attempted Compelling Prostitution (Count 5 of the

indictment, as amended) and to 18 months in prison and a $2,500 fine for an additional

violation of R.C.2923.02(A) and R.C. 2907.21(A)(1) and (C), Attempted Compelling

Prostitution (Count 12 of the indictment, as am ended). Counts 11 and 12 were ordered to

be served concurrently to each other but consecutive to Count 5, for an aggregate term of
incarceration of 54 months in prison and a fine of $10,000.

{¶ 2} The reasons that follow, we affirm the decision of the trial cou rt.
{¶ 3} Appellant present s two assignments of error for our consideration.
Appellant’s first assignment of error states:

1. The trial court committed error by imposing fines without finding

appellant had the means or ability to pay.
{¶ 4} Appellant concedes that R.C. 2929.18 establishes that financial sanctions

may be imposed on an offender at sentencing. Lieb also makes no argument that the

court failed to make the necessary and proper findings that he had the ability to pay the

financial sanctions. There was no objection made before the trial court concerning the

imposition of the fines and court costs and Lieb makes no such objection in his appeal to

this court.3

. {¶ 5} Appellant’s only objection to the imposition of the fines and court costs are

that these findings concerning his ability to pay the financial sanctions made by the trial

court at the sentencing hearing are not reflected in the judgment entry of sentencing. The

judgment entry of sentencing does not assess costs with any particul arity but simply

checks off a box captioned “D efendant shall pay all court costs in this case.”
{¶ 6} Clearly, there is a discrepancy between the sentencing hearing transcript and

the sentencing entry as it concerns an explicit finding made by the trial court of Lieb’s

ability to pay the financial sanctions.

Analysis
{¶ 7} Court costs, costs, or costs of this action means any costs that the Revised

Code requires a court to impose upon an offender who has been convicted. S tate v.

Bricker
, 6th Dist. Fulton No. F

- 21

- 013, 2022

- Ohio

- 3494, ¶ 25, citing State v. Lantz
, 6th

Dist. Fulton No. F

- 18

- 011, 2019

- Ohio

- 3307

. {¶ 8} The costs of prosecution are mandatory, pursuant to R.C. 2947.23(A)(1), and

trial courts are obligated to impose the costs of pro secution irrespective of a defendant ’ s
ability to pay. State v. White , 103 Ohio St.3d 580, 2004

- Ohio

- 5989, 817 N.E.2d 393, ¶

8. See also State v. Rohda , 6th Dist. Fulton No. F

- 06

- 007, 2006

- Ohio

- 6291, ¶ 13. Other

costs, such as the costs of confinement, are not mandatory but may be imposed after the

trial court finds the defendant has the ability to pay. See R.C. 2929.18(A)(5)(a)(ii); State

v. Lincoln , 6th Dist. Lucas No. L

- 15

- 1080, 2016

- Ohio

- 1274, ¶ 14.4

. {¶ 9} Before imposing a financial sanction under R.C. 2929.18, the court shall

consider the offender ’ s present and future ability to pay the amount of the sanction or

fine. A trial court is not required to expressly state that it considered a defendant ’ s ability

to pay a fine nor is a court is req uired to make findings of Lieb’s ability to pay. All that

is required is that the trial court consider his ability to pay.
{¶ 10} And, although preferred on appellate review, a trial court need not

explicitly state in its judgment entry that it considered a defendant ’ s ability to pay a

financial s anction. State v. Dahms
, 6th Dist. Sandusky No. S

- 11

- 028, 2012

- Ohio

- 3181
, ¶
29, citing State v. Berry, 4th Dist. Scioto No. 04CA2961, 2006

- Ohio

- 244, ¶ 43.
{¶ 11} A reviewing court may infer that a trial court considered the issue. State v.

Johnson , 6th Dist. Sandusky Case No. S

- 20

- 037, 2021

- Ohio

- 3380, ¶ 28. An appellate

court will look to the totality of the record to determine whether the requirement has been

satisfied. Id.
{¶ 12} In this case, the court engaged in a direct colloq u y with appellant about

information contained in the Presentence Investigation Report. The court confirmed with

Lieb that he had been employed as a probation officer with the Sandusky Municipal

Court for almost 20 years, that he had no disabilities and that he did not have a bachelor

degree but was two years away from obtaining his degree in Criminal Justice. The court

further verified that at the time of sentencing, he had obtained full

- time employment

earning $15 per hour and that he was 40 years old. The court also inquired as to checking5

.

and savings accounts that were held by appellant and that he was married and had two

minor children. The court also confirmed with Lieb the nature of any existing financial

ob ligations such as mortgage and car payments.
{¶ 13} The record in this case demonstrates that the trial court adequately

considered present and future ability of Lieb to pay the fines and court costs imposed in

these cases. Upon a review of the record, we find a ppellant’s first assignment of error to

be not well

- taken and denied.
{¶ 14} Appellant’s second assignment of error states:

2. The trial court committed error by considering alleged victims

who were not linked to proven violation of law.
{¶ 15} Lieb argues that since he entered pleas on Counts 5 (Victim1), 11 and 12 (a

minor, Victim 3) the court erred in considering statements from Victim 2 whose charges

were dismissed as part of a plea agreement.
{¶ 16} Appellant acknowledges that a victim may make a statement before

sentencing pursuant to R.C. 2930.13. However, he argues that since the counts involving

Victim 2 were dismissed as part of the plea agreement, this victim does not meet the

statutory definition of a victim pursuant to R.C. 2930.01(H).
{¶ 17} Tha t section states:
H) “Victim” means either of the following:6

. (1) A person who is identified as the victim of a crime or specified

delinquent act in a police report or in a complaint, indictment, or

information that charges the commission of a crime and that provides the

basis for the criminal prosecution or delinquency proceeding and

subsequent proceedings to which this chapter makes reference.
{¶ 18} Appellant ignores that Victim 2 is specifically identified in Count 9 of the

indictment and would clearly fit w ithin this statutory definition. Therefore, appellant’s

claim that Victim 2 is not a victim under this statute is meritless.
{¶ 19} Regardless, this court has addressed this precise issue in State v.

Boswell
, 6th Dist. Erie No. E

- 18

- 053, 2019

- Ohio

- 2949 ¶ 29 where we held:
Ohio law directs that a sentencing court is not confined to considering the

evidence that strictly relates to the conviction offense because the court is

no longer concerned with the narrow i ssue of guilt. State v. Bowser , 186

Ohio App.3d 162, 2010

- Ohio

- 951, 926 N.E.2d 714, ¶ 14 (2d Dist.). Indeed,

we have recognized that sentencing courts may consider a broad range of
otherwise inadmissible evidence, including “charges that were reduced or

di smissed under a plea agreement.” State v. Thompson , 6th Dist. Sandusky

No. S

- 11

- 052, 2013

- Ohio

- 1594, ¶ 42, citing State v. Degens , 6th Dist.

Lucas No. L

- 11

- 1112, 2012

- Ohio

- 2421, ¶ 19; State v. Robbins , 6th Dist.

Williams No. WM

- 10

- 018, 2011

- Ohio

- 4141, ¶ 9; State v. Banks , 10th Dist.7

. Franklin Nos. AP

- 1065, 10AP

- 1066, and Franklin Nos. 10AP

- 1067, 2011

-

Ohio

- 2749, ¶ 24; State v. Johnson , 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 10 MA 32,

2010

- Ohio

- 6387, ¶ 26.
{¶ 20} Therefore, the trial court ’ s consideration of facts and statement of t he

victim pertaining to the dismissed charges was permissible.
{¶ 21} Appellant argues that our holding Boswell is unfair and its application is

contrary to a presumption of innocence in dismissed charges. That broad

- brush argument

is seriously flawed and we are not persuaded to re

- visit our holding in that case.
Accordingly, we find appellant’s s econd a ssignment of e rror to be not well

- taken and

denied.

Conclusion
{¶ 22} On consideration whereof, the judgment of the Erie County Court of

Common Pleas is affirmed. Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant

to App.R. 24(A)(4)

. Judgment affirmed.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.8

. State of Ohio v. Adam Lieb E

- 22

- 025

Thomas J. Osowik, J.

____________________________ JUDGE Christine E. Mayle, J.

____________________________ Gene A. Zmuda, 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/.