[Cite as State v. Manning, 2018-Ohio-3334.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

BUTLER COUNTY 

STATE OF OHIO, : 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2017-08-113 

 : O P I N I O N 

 - vs - 8/20/2018 

 : 

DERICK E. MANNING, : 

 Defendant-Appellant. : 

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

Case No. CR2017-05-0839 

Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Willa Concannon, Government 

Services Center, 315 High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for plaintiff-appellee 

Scott N. Blauvelt, 315 South Monument Avenue, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for defendantappellant 

 PIPER, J.

{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Derick Manning, appeals his sentence in the Butler 

County Court of Common Pleas after pleading guilty to aggravated possession of drugs. 

{¶ 2} Manning was charged with several drug-related offenses after separate arrests 

for possessing and selling methamphetamine, one of which included a police chase. 

Manning pled guilty to aggravated possession of drugs in two of the cases, and failure to 
Butler CA2017-08-113 

 - 2 - 

comply with an order or signal of a police officer in a third case. 

{¶ 3} The trial court held a joint sentencing hearing and imposed an aggregate prison 

term of seven years. During the hearing, the trial court also imposed mandatory fines totaling 

$10,000 and ordered forfeiture of cash found on Manning's person during his arrest for 

aggravated possession of drugs. When the trial court addressed the fines, Manning's 

counsel indicated that he had not filed an affidavit of indigency for the purposes of obtaining 

a waiver of the mandatory fine. The trial court noted that such an affidavit was required 

before sentencing, and thus proceeded to impose the sentence referenced above. 

{¶ 4} Manning now appeals his sentence, raising the following assignments of error. 

We will address Manning's first and second assignments of error together, as they are 

interrelated. 

{¶ 5} Assignment of Error No. 1: 

{¶ 6} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT IN 

DECLINING TO CONSIDER WAIVER OF A MANDATORY FINE. 

{¶ 7} Assignment of Error No. 2: 

{¶ 8} APPELLANT WAS DENIED THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL 

GUARANTEED BY THE SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. 

{¶ 9} Manning argues in his first and second assignments of error that the trial court 

erred by ordering him to pay mandatory fines and that his counsel was ineffective for not 

properly requesting mandatory waiver of the fines. 

{¶ 10} According to R.C. 2929.18(B)(1), the trial court must impose a fine for all first, 

second, or third-degree felony drug convictions. However, the statute permits the trial court 

to waive the mandatory fine "if an offender alleges in an affidavit filed with the court prior to 

sentencing that the offender is indigent and unable to pay the mandatory fine and if the court 

determines the offender is an indigent person and is unable to pay the mandatory fine 
Butler CA2017-08-113 

 - 3 - 

described in this division." Id. 

{¶ 11} "Before imposing a financial sanction under section 2929.18 of the Revised 

Code * * * the court shall consider the offender's present and future ability to pay the amount 

of the sanction or fine." R.C. 2929.19(B)(5). Although we note that it is preferable for 

appellate review, a trial court need not explicitly state in its judgment entry that it considered 

a defendant's ability to pay a financial sanction. State v. Dehner, 12th Dist. Clermont No. 

CA2012-12-090, 2013-Ohio-3576, ¶ 47. Instead, courts look to the totality of the record to 

see if this requirement has been satisfied. Id. There are no express factors that must be 

considered or specific findings made regarding the offender's ability to pay. State v. 

Dandridge, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2003-12-330, 2005-Ohio-1077, ¶ 6. R.C. 2929.19(B)(5) 

requires only that the trial court consider the offender's present or future ability to pay. Id.

{¶ 12} "The determination that a defendant is indigent for purposes of appointed 

counsel is separate and distinct from a determination of being indigent for purposes of paying 

a mandatory fine." State v. Johnson, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2011-11-212, 2014-Ohio-3776, 

¶ 15. 

{¶ 13} According to the Ohio Supreme Court, "the affidavit must be formally filed with 

the court prior to the filing of a journal entry reflecting the trial court's sentencing decision." 

State v. Gipson, 80 Ohio St.3d 626, 632 (1998). A formal filing "means that the affidavit must 

be delivered to the clerk of court for purposes of filing and must be indorsed by the clerk of 

court, i.e., time-stamped, prior to the filing of the journal entry reflecting the trial court's 

sentencing decision." Id. at 626. "[T]he required filing of an affidavit of indigency for 

purposes of avoiding a mandatory fine is, in effect, a jurisdictional issue." Id. at 633. 

{¶ 14} The record clearly indicates that Manning's affidavit of indigency was never 

formally filed with the court regarding his request to waive the mandatory fines. Therefore, 

Manning did not file his affidavit of indigency with the trial court prior to sentencing and the 
Butler CA2017-08-113 

 - 4 - 

trial court was not permitted to consider the merits of Manning's request to waive the 

mandatory fees. 

{¶ 15} Although the sentencing transcript demonstrates that Manning's counsel 

requested the ability to file an affidavit at some future time, counsel did not file that affidavit in 

compliance with the statute. During the sentencing hearing, the following exchange occurred 

while the trial court was addressing the fines. 

[Counsel] Your Honor, if I may? 

[Court] Yes. 

[Counsel] Regarding that, I - - unfortunately, in my file, I did not 

have an affidavit of indigency from the lower court 

that - - a representation from [the] lower court. But, I 

do have the waiver. I can file it - - this, perhaps, 

maybe, in the next 15 minutes. Would the Court 

consider waiving that mandatory fine? 

[Court] I'm not sure what the case is, but I don't think the 

Court can. It has to be filed prior to the imposition of 

the sentence, and if it's not filed prior to the 

imposition of the sentence, then the Court does not 

have the authority to waive the mandatory fine. 

{¶ 16} We understand that counsel may have been momentarily deterred by the trial 

court's inaccurate statement that the affidavit needed to be filed before the sentencing 

hearing. However, there is nothing on record to suggest that Manning tried to proffer the 

affidavit or tried to file it prior to the trial court's sentencing entry upon learning the correct 

rule of law. 

{¶ 17} These facts are similar to Gipson where defense counsel attempted to submit 

an affidavit of indigency at the sentencing hearing, but the trial court determined the affidavit 

was untimely and did not accept it. Despite the trial court's error in not permitting the 

defendant to file his affidavit after the sentencing hearing but before the trial court's 

sentencing entry, the Ohio Supreme Court noted that the affidavit was never submitted to the 
Butler CA2017-08-113 

 - 5 - 

court after the hearing and despite the trial court's indication that it would not accept the 

affidavit, the trial court did not err in imposing the fine. 

{¶ 18} As noted above, filing for purposes of the statute requires the clerk of the court 

to indorse the time of filing on each pleading or filing. Even if the trial court had become 

aware of the correct rule of law that an affidavit can be filed after the sentencing hearing so 

long as it is filed before the entry of sentence, the trial court could not have considered 

Manning's affidavit because it was never filed, let alone timely filed. 

{¶ 19} Manning argues that his counsel's failure to submit the affidavit rendered 

counsel's assistance ineffective. To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, 

appellant must show his trial counsel's performance was deficient, and that he was 

prejudiced as a result. State v. Clarke, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2015-11-189, 2016-Ohio7187, ¶ 49; Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-688, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (1984). Trial 

counsel's performance will not be deemed deficient unless it fell below an objective standard 

of reasonableness. Strickland at 688. To show prejudice, appellant must establish that, but 

for his trial counsel's errors, there is a reasonable probability that the result would have been 

different. Id. at 694. 

{¶ 20} The failure to satisfy either prong of the Strickland test is fatal to an ineffective 

assistance of counsel claim. Clarke at ¶ 49. Counsel is strongly presumed to have rendered 

adequate assistance and made all significant decisions in the exercise of reasonable 

professional judgment. State v. Burns, 12th Dist. Clinton No. CA2013-10-019, 2014-Ohio4625, ¶ 7. 

{¶ 21} Failure to file an affidavit alleging a defendant's indigency and inability to pay a 

mandatory fine constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel only if the record shows a 

reasonable probability that the trial court would have found the defendant indigent and 

unable to pay the fine had the affidavit been filed. State v. Johnson, 12th Dist. Butler No. 
Butler CA2017-08-113 

 - 6 - 

CA2011-11-212, 2014-Ohio-3776. The filing of an affidavit of indigency by a defendant does 

not automatically entitle the defendant to a waiver of the mandatory fine. State v. Bolden, 

12th Dist. Preble No. CA2003-03-007, 2004-Ohio-184. The defendant has the burden to 

affirmatively demonstrate that he or she is indigent and is unable to pay the mandatory fine. 

Gipson, 80 Ohio St.3d at 635. 

{¶ 22} There is no indication in the record that the trial court would have determined 

that Manning was unable to pay the fines even had counsel properly filed an affidavit. 

Instead, the trial court had evidence before it that Manning was a full-time employee at the 

time of his crime, earning $400 per week, and that Manning believed his employer would rehire him upon his release from prison. Manning had his GED, and his overall physical health 

was good. He was not under the care of a doctor for any physical ailments at the time of 

sentencing and would have had no reason to avoid employment. 

{¶ 23} The trial court also considered that Manning would be 40 years old when 

released from prison and was "intelligent." Manning's own counsel indicated to the court that 

Manning had a "skill set" and strong "family support to be a productive member of society." 

The trial court also noted that it had considered the presentence investigation report, which 

contained these facts and more regarding Manning's present and future ability to pay. 

{¶ 24} These facts demonstrate that Manning could not have met his burden to 

affirmatively demonstrate his inability to pay the fine. As such, the results of Manning's 

request to waive the mandatory fine would not have been different even if counsel had filed 

an affidavit of indigency. Manning's first and second assignments of error are overruled. 

{¶ 25} Assignment of Error No. 3: 

{¶ 26} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT BY 

ORDERING THE PAYMENT OF COSTS. 

{¶ 27} Manning argues that the trial court erred in imposing court costs because the 
Butler CA2017-08-113 

 - 7 - 

court made no mention of such costs at the sentencing hearing. 

{¶ 28} According to R.C. 2947.23(A), a trial court shall include the costs of 

prosecution in the defendant's sentence. However, the imposition of costs may be waived if 

the defendant is indigent. State v. White, 103 Ohio St.3d 580, 2004-Ohio-5989. In the past, 

if a trial court failed to address court costs at the sentencing hearing but then ordered the 

defendant to pay costs in its entry, the defendant would be deprived of an opportunity to seek 

a waiver. State v. Joseph, 125 Ohio St.3d 76, 2010-Ohio-954, ¶ 13. Appellate courts would 

therefore reverse and remand for the limited purpose of allowing the defendant to move the 

court for a waiver of the payment of court costs. 

{¶ 29} However, and since Joseph was decided, the General Assembly amended 

R.C. 2947.23 by adding subdivision (C): "The court retains jurisdiction to waive, suspend, or 

modify the payment of the costs of prosecution * * * at the time of sentencing or at any time 

thereafter." (Emphasis added.) As such, Manning does not need this court to remand his 

case for him to file a motion to waive costs. See State v. Beasley, Slip Opinion No. 2018-

Ohio-493 (finding that Beasley did not need the court to remand his case for him to file a 

motion to waive costs given the amendment to R.C. 2947.23). Manning can demonstrate no 

prejudice simply because the order for court costs was included in the entry but not 

referenced at the hearing. Therefore, Manning's request for a remand on this basis has no 

merit and his third assignment of error is overruled. 

{¶ 30} Judgment affirmed. 

 S. POWELL, P.J., and M. POWELL, J., concur.