Court Opinion

ID: 9876829
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-27 15:36:15.545444+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:15.692915
License: Public Domain

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, A.J., CONCURRING IN PART AND DISSENTING IN PART:
  

   {¶ 17} I respectfully dissent from the majority's disposition of Thomas's third assignment of error regarding the trial court's imposition of costs in its journal entry of sentencing, despite its failure to impose those costs in open court at sentencing.
  

   {¶ 18} I would follow the plethora of cases that hold pursuant to
   
    Joseph
   
   ,
   
    125 Ohio St.3d 76
   
   ,
   
    2010-Ohio-954
   
   ,
   
    926 N.E.2d 278
   
   , that it is reversible error under Crim.R. 43(A) for the trial court to impose court costs in its sentencing entry when it did not impose those costs in open court at the sentencing hearing, and that the proper remedy is to reverse the imposition of costs and remand to the trial court for the limited purpose of allowing the defendant to move for a waiver of court costs.
   
    See, e.g.,
   

    State v. Martin
   
   , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104354,
   
    2017-Ohio-99
   
   ,
   
    2017 WL 121774
   
   ;
   
    State v. Elder
   
   , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104392,
   
    2017-Ohio-292
   
   ,
   
    2017 WL 389741
   
   ;
   
    State v. Sizemore
   
   , 5th Dist. Richland No. 15CA18,
   
    2016-Ohio-1529
   
   ,
   
    2016 WL 1450530
   
   (specifically noting the amendment to R.C. 2947.23 but nevertheless finding reversible error);
   
    Rudd
   
   , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102754,
   
    2016-Ohio-106
   
   ,
   
    2016 WL 193495
   
   ;
   
    State v. Walker
   
   , 5th Dist. Richland No. 09CA88,
   
    2016-Ohio-8615
   
   ,
   
    2016 WL 8467006
   
   ;
   
    State v. Saturday
   
   , 9th Dist. Summit 27521,
   
    2015-Ohio-2136
   
   ,
   
    2015 WL 3498646
   
   ;
   
    State v. Grant
   
   , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100497,
   
    2014-Ohio-2656
   
   ,
   
    2014 WL 2809050
   
   ;
   
    State v. Taylor
   
   , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100315,
   
    2014-Ohio-3134
   
   ,
   
    2014 WL 3537829
   
   ;
   
    State v. Roberts
   
   , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98973,
   
    2013-Ohio-2202
   
   ,
   
    2013 WL 2382264
   
   ;
   
    State v. Thompson
   
   , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99467,
   
    2013-Ohio-4793
   
   ,
   
    2013 WL 5885100
   
   .
  

   {¶ 19} Notably, all of these cases were decided after R.C. 2947.23 was amended effective March 22, 2013. Although R.C. 2947.23 no longer places limits on when a defendant can move for a waiver of court costs,
   
    Joseph
   
   has not been overruled, and I cannot agree that a defendant suffers no prejudice when the trial court imposes court costs in his or her absence. Accordingly, I dissent in part.