[Cite as State v. Lee, 2019-Ohio-4548.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO 

 Plaintiff-Appellee 

-vsTERRY L. LEE 

 Defendant-Appellant 

JUDGES: 

Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P. J. 

Hon. John W. Wise, J. 

Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J. 

Case No. 2019 CA 0050 

O P I N I O N 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal Appeal from the Court of Common 

Pleas, Case No. 2014 CR 0711 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: November 1, 2019 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellant For Defendant-Appellant 

GARY BISHOP TERRY L. LEE 

PROSECUTING ATTORNEY PRO SE 

JOSEPH C. SNYDER WARREN CORR. INSTITUTION 

ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR P. O. Box 120 

38 South Park Street Lebanon, Ohio 45038 

Mansfield, Ohio 44902 
Richland County, Case No. 2019 CA 0050 2

Wise, John, J. 

{¶1} Defendant-Appellant Terry L. Lee appeals the May 2, 2019, decision of the 

Richland County Court of Common Pleas denying his motion with regard to the imposition 

of court costs. 

{¶2} Appellee is the state of Ohio. 

{¶3} Preliminarily, we note this case is before this Court on the accelerated 

calendar which is governed by App.R. 11.1. Subsection (E), determination and judgment 

on appeal, provides in pertinent part: “The appeal will be determined as provided by 

App.R. 11.1. It shall be sufficient compliance with App.R. 12(A) for the statement of the 

reason for the court's decision as to each error to be in brief and conclusionary form.” 

{¶4} One of the important purposes of the accelerated calendar is to enable an 

appellate court to render a brief and conclusory decision more quickly than in a case on 

the regular calendar where the briefs, facts, and legal issues are more complicated. 

Crawford v. Eastland Shopping Mall Assn., 11 Ohio App.3d 158, 463 N.E.2d 655 (10th 

Dist. 1983). 

{¶5} This appeal shall be considered in accordance with the aforementioned 

rules. 

Facts and Procedural History 

{¶6} For purposes of this appeal, the facts and procedural history are as follows: 

{¶7} On November 6, 2014, a Richland County Grand Jury indicted Appellant on 

one count of Murder, an unclassified felony pursuant to R.C. §2903.02(A), and one count 

of Aggravated Murder, an unclassified felony pursuant to R.C. §2903.01(A). Both counts 

included firearm specifications pursuant to R.C. §2941.145. 
Richland County, Case No. 2019 CA 0050 3

{¶8} On May 7, 2015, Lee's trial counsel filed a "Motion in Limine" requesting the 

court bar the state from referencing Lee’s aliases or discussing his prior convictions. On 

May 14, 2015, the trial court granted the motion. 

{¶9} Following a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of Murder and the 

accompanying firearm specification and not guilty of Aggravated Murder. 

{¶10} On May 29, 2015, the trial court sentenced Appellant to a mandatory term of 

fifteen (15) years to life for Murder and a mandatory term of three (3) years on the firearm 

specification, with those terms to run consecutively for a total mandatory term of eighteen 

(18) years to life. 

{¶11} Appellant appealed his conviction in State v. Lee, Fifth Dist. Richland App. 

No. 15-CA-52, 2016-Ohio-1045, wherein this Court upheld Appellant’s conviction. 

{¶12} On March 8, 2019, Appellant filed a motion titled “Common Law Petition Or 

Void/Voidable Court Costs” with the trial court. 

{¶13} On May 2, 2019, the trial court denied Appellant’s motion. 

{¶14} Appellant now appeals, assigning the following error for review: 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 

{¶15} “I. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE AND PLAIN ERROR 

IN ASSESSING COURT COSTS AGAINST PETITIONER WHEN IT DID NOT IMPOSE 

THOSE COSTS IN OPEN COURT AND WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH R.C. 2947.23(A), 

AND ORDERING PETITIONER TO PAY RESTITUTION WITHOUT CONSIDERING 

PETITIONER’S PRESENT AND FUTURE ABILITY TO PAY AS REQUIRED UNDER 

R.C. 2929.15(B)(5).” 
Richland County, Case No. 2019 CA 0050 4

App.R. 16 

{¶16} Initially, we note that Appellant's pro se brief does not comply with the rules 

for a proper brief as set forth in App.R. 16(A). Appellant's pro se brief in support of his 

appeal fails in almost every respect to comply with the requirements governing the 

content of the brief of the Appellant. App.R.16 (A)(1)-(6). Briefs filed in this Court, whether 

by counsel or pro se, must comply with App.R. 16. 

{¶17} Appellant's brief does not include a table of cases, statutes, and/or other 

authority, in violation of App.R. 16(A)(1) and (2). Appellant's brief does not include a 

statement of the issues presented for review, as required by App.R. 16(A)(4), or a brief 

statement of the facts of the case, as mandated by App.R. 16(A)(5). 

{¶18} Pursuant to App.R. 12(A)(2), we are not required to address issues which 

are not argued separately as assignments of error, as required by App.R. 16(A). Kremer 

v. Cox, 114 Ohio App.3d 41, 60, 682 N.E.2d 1006 (1996); Hawley v. Ritley, 35 Ohio St.3d 

157, 159, 519 N.E.2d 390 (1988). Such deficiencies permit this Court to dismiss 

Appellant's appeal. 

{¶19} Notwithstanding the omissions in Appellant's brief, in the interest of justice 

and finality we elect to review what we believe are the issues raised in Appellant's appeal. 

I. 

{¶20} In his sole assignment of error, Appellant argues that the trial court erred in 

imposing court costs when he was sentenced in 2015. 

{¶21} Specifically, Appellant argues that while his sentencing judgment entry 

orders him to pay court costs, he was not orally informed of this obligation at the time of 

sentencing. 
Richland County, Case No. 2019 CA 0050 5

{¶22} In support of his argument, Appellant cites State v. Joseph 125 Ohio St.3d 

76, 2010-Ohio-954 926 N.E.2d 278. 

{¶23} This Court has previously considered this issue in the context of Joseph, 

supra and held: 

 In that matter, the Ohio Supreme Court found a trial court errs when 

it imposes court costs in the sentencing judgment entry after it fails to 

impose those costs in open court at the sentencing hearing. 

 The Court further found that “[t]he civil nature of the imposition of court 

costs does not create the taint on the criminal sentence that the failure to 

inform a defendant of postrelease control does.” State v. Joseph, 125 Ohio 

St.3d 76, 79, 2010-Ohio-954, 926 N.E.2d 278, 282, ¶ 21. 

 “Therefore, the failure of the court to notify a defendant of the 

obligation to pay costs so that he may move for a waiver of costs may be 

error cognizable on direct appeal, but it does not render the sentence void.” 

State v. Chapman, 5th Dist. Richland No. 15CA20, 2015-Ohio-3114 at ¶ 11 

citing Joseph at 21. 

 Joseph was decided in the context of a direct appeal from the 

sentencing judgment imposing court costs. “Joseph does not support the 

argument that a trial court's failure to orally notify a defendant in open court 

before imposing court costs can be corrected after the appeal period 

expires.” State v. Pettway, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98836, 2013-Ohio-1348, 

¶ 5. 

{¶24} State v. Linzy, 5th Dist. Richland No. 18CA46, 2018-Ohio-3179. 
Richland County, Case No. 2019 CA 0050 6

{¶25} Here, Appellant could have raised the issue of court costs in his 2016 direct 

appeal to this Court and failed to do so. Accordingly, Appellant's argument is barred by 

the doctrine of res judicata. 

{¶26} Appellant’s sole assignment of error is overruled. 

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

Richland County, Ohio, is affirmed. 

By: Wise, John, J. 

Gwin, P. J., and 

Wise, Earle, J., concur. 

. 

JWW/d 1023