[Cite as State v. Cason, 2014-Ohio-5676.]

 STATE OF OHIO, JEFFERSON COUNTY 

 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

 SEVENTH DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO, ) 

 ) CASE NO. 13 JE 37 

 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, ) 

 ) 

 - VS - ) OPINION 

 ) 

CARL J. CASON, Jr., ) 

 ) 

 DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. ) 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas 

Court, Case Nos. 13 CR 140 and 

13 CR 141 

JUDGMENT: Sentence Affirmed in Part; 

 Reversed and Remanded In Part 

 for Determination of Costs. 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellee: Attorney Jane Hanlin 

Prosecuting Attorney 

Attorney Frank J. Bruzzese 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 

16001 State Route 7 

Steubenville, OH 43952 

For Defendant-Appellant: Attorney Timothy Young 

Office of the Ohio Public Defender 

Attorney Valerie Kunze 

Assistant State Public Defender 

250 E. Broad Street, Suite 1400 

Columbus, OH 43215 

JUDGES: 

Hon. Mary DeGenaro 

Hon. Gene Donofrio 

Hon. Joseph J. Vukovich 

Dated: December 18, 2014 
[Cite as State v. Cason, 2014-Ohio-5676.]

DeGenaro, P.J. 

{¶1} Defendant-Appellant, Carl Cason, Jr. appeals the October 10, 2013 

judgment of the Jefferson County Court of Common Pleas asserting the trial court 

erred when it failed to address court costs in open court but imposed them in the 

sentencing entry. Because Cason's argument is meritorious, the trial court's judgment 

is reversed and the matter remanded for the trial court to conduct a limited 

resentencing hearing to address the issue of court costs. 

{¶2} In his sole assignment of error, Cason asserts: 

{¶3} "The trial court erred when it failed to address the imposition of court costs 

in open court, but included such costs in the sentencing entry. R.C. 2949.092." 

{¶4} The trial court found Cason was indigent. Despite that finding, Cason 

asserts the trial court stated at the sentencing hearing that it would not impose 

restitution and fines, but then imposed court costs in the sentencing entry, which was 

not addressed in open court. The State concedes the error and the validity of this 

argument based upon a series of Ohio cases. 

{¶5} In State v. White, 103 Ohio St.3d 580, 2004-Ohio-5989, 817 N.E.2d 393 

the Court held that R.C. 2947.23 requires a trial court to assess costs against all criminal 

defendants, and to do so even if the defendant is indigent. Id. at ¶8. "A trial court may 

waive the payment of court costs only upon statutory authority and only if the defendant 

moves for waiver of costs at the time of sentencing." State v. Clevenger, 114 Ohio St.3d 

258, 2007-Ohio-4006, 871 N.E.2d 589, ¶11. However, "a court errs in imposing court 

costs without so informing a defendant in court, but that the error does not void the 

defendant's entire sentence. Instead, upon remand, the trial court must address the 

defendant's motion for waiver of payment of court costs." State v. Joseph, 125 Ohio 

St.3d 76, 2010-Ohio-954, 926 N.E.2d 278, ¶1. 

{¶6} As the trial court did not address court costs at the sentencing hearing and 

deprived Cason with the opportunity to move for a waiver, Cason's assignment of error 

is meritorious. 
- 2 - 

{¶7} Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court regarding court costs is 

reversed, and the matter is remanded for the trial court to conduct a limited resentencing 

hearing on the issue of court costs and potential waiver of same. 

Donofrio, J., concurs. 

Vukovich, J., concurs.