Court Opinion

ID: 9899442
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-16 18:09:22.37286+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:26.891561
License: Public Domain

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

                                       COURT OF APPEALS
                                    ASHLAND COUNTY, OHIO
                                   FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO                                     JUDGES:
                                                  Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
        Plaintiff-Appellee                        Hon. John W. Wise, J.
                                                  Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
-vs-
                                                  Case No. 23 COA 003
MICHAEL WATSON

        Defendant-Appellant                       OPINION

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