[Cite as State v. Watson, 2023-Ohio-4142.]

COURT OF APPEALS

ASHLAND COUNTY, OHIO

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO

Plaintiff-Appellee

-vsMICHAEL WATSON

Defendant-Appellant

JUDGES:

Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.

Hon. John W. Wise, J.

Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. 

Case No. 23 COA 003

O P I N I O N 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal Appeal from the Court of Common 

Pleas, Case No. 19 CRI 194

JUDGMENT: Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: November 16, 2023

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant

CHRISTOPHER TUNNELL TIMOTHY B. HACKETT

PROSECUTING ATTORNEY ASSISTANT PUBLIC DEFENDER

NADINE HAUPTMAN 250 East Broad Street

ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR Suite 1400

110 Cottage Street, Third Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215

Ashland, Ohio 44805
Ashland County, Case No. 23 COA 003 2

Wise, J.

{¶1} Appellant Michael Watson appeals his sentence entered in the Ashland 

County Court of Common Pleas. Appellee is State of Ohio. The relevant facts leading to 

this appeal are as follows.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE

{¶2} This is Appellant’s third appeal of his case. 

{¶3} In 2020, Appellant entered a plea of guilty to two counts of aggravated 

murder, four counts of conspiracy to commit aggravated murder, two counts of attempted 

aggravated murder, aggravated battery, and aggravated robbery, all with accompanying 

firearm specifications. When the crimes were committed, Appellant was seventeen years 

old.

{¶4} Appellant was sentenced on one count of aggravated murder, one count of 

attempted aggravated murder, and aggravated robbery. The parties agreed to a 

recommendation of life in prison with the possibility of parole in thirty years. The trial court 

sentenced Appellant to thirty-eight years to life in prison. 

{¶5} Appellant appealed this sentence as the trial court failed to consider 

Appellant’s age as a mitigating factor when imposing a term of life imprisonment. This 

Court agreed and remanded to the trial court for resentencing.

{¶6} After a new sentencing hearing the trial court ordered Appellant serve an 

aggregate prison term of forty-three years to life in prison. Watson again appealed the 

sentence, but this time the sentence was affirmed.

{¶7} On September 7, 2022, during the pendency of Appellant’s second appeal, 

Appellant filed a motion to waive, suspend, or modify payment of court costs.
Ashland County, Case No. 23 COA 003 3

{¶8} On January 11, 2023, the trial court denied Appellant’s motion.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

{¶9} Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. He herein raises the following

Assignment of Error:

{¶10} “I. THE TRIAL COURT SENTENCED MICHAEL WATSON TO A LIFE 

SENTENCE. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT IMPOSED 

COURT COSTS AND UNREASONABLY AND ARBITRARILY DENIED MICHAEL’S 

MOTION TO WAIVE, SUSPEND, OR MODIFY PAYMENT OF THE COSTS.”

I.

{¶11} In Appellant’s sole Assignment of Error, Appellant argues the trial court 

abused its discretion in denying his motion to waive, suspend, or modify payment of court 

costs. We disagree.

{¶12} A decision to impose court costs is within a trial court’s sound discretion. 

State v. Braden, 158 Ohio St.3d 462, 2019-Ohio-4204,145 N.E.3d 235, ¶30. The abuse 

of discretion standard is more than an error of law or judgment; it implies the court ruled 

arbitrarily, unreasonably, or unconscionably. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 

450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983).

{¶13} R.C. §2947.23, in pertinent part, states:

(A)(1)(a) 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 such costs.

* * *
Ashland County, Case No. 23 COA 003 4

(C) The court retains jurisdiction to waive, suspend, or modify the 

payment of prosecution, including any costs under section 2947.231 of the 

Revised Code, at the time of sentencing or at any time thereafter.

{¶14} “[A] trial court is not required to consider a defendant’s ability to pay in 

assessing a motion to waive, suspend, or modify court costs under R.C. §2947.23(C), 

though it is permitted to do so.” State v. Taylor, 161 Ohio St.3d 319, 2020-Ohio-3514, 163 

N.E.3d 486, ¶16.

{¶15} Appellant argues costs should have been waived or modified because 

Appellant is spending forty-three years to life in prison and has a limited ability to pay or 

earn money. The trial court found that because Appellant is temporarily incarcerated, with 

the possibility of parole, he may be able to pay the costs in the future. Appellant disagrees 

with the trial court’s assessment that Appellant’s incarceration is temporary. However, 

this does not show the trial court made an arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable 

decision.

{¶16} Therefore, as a trial court is not required to consider a defendant’s ability to 

pay, and that the trial court is not required to waive, suspend, or modify payment of 

prosecution due to a lengthy prison term, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in 

denying Appellant’s motion to waive, suspend, modify court costs.
Ashland County, Case No. 23 COA 003 5

{¶17} Accordingly, Appellant’s sole Assignment of Error is overruled. 

{¶18} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, 

Ashland County, Ohio, is hereby, affirmed.

By: Wise, J.

Hoffman, P. J., and

Baldwin, J., concur.

JWW/br 1026