Court Opinion

ID: 9384106
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-31 19:06:06.311733+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:50.538129
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Velesquez, 2023-Ohio-1100.]

                             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                                 SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                      LUCAS COUNTY

State of Ohio                                       Court of Appeals No. L-22-1167

        Appellee                                    Trial Court No. CR0202201153

v.

Roberto Velesquez                                   DECISION AND JUDGMENT

        Appellant                                   Decided: March 31, 2023

                                                *****

        Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and
        Lorrie J. Rendle, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

        Laurel A. Kendall, for appellant.

                                                *****

        MAYLE, J.

        {¶ 1} Following a plea, the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas sentenced the

appellant, Roberto Velesquez, to a total stated minimum term of 10 years in prison with a

maximum indefinite term of 12.5 years. The trial court’s June 28, 2022 judgment entry

also imposed various costs. On appeal, Velesquez challenges the imposition of
discretionary costs. Because the state concedes error under 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 10(H)

and because we agree with the parties, that the imposition of the costs of confinement

was contrary to law, we vacate that part of the judgment. We affirm the judgment in all

other respects.

                                   I. Background and Facts

          {¶ 2} On June 15, 2022, Velesquez pleaded no contest to two counts of

endangering children in violation of R.C. 2919.22(B)(1), (E)(1), and (E)(2)(d), both

felonies of the second degree. A third count of endangering children was dismissed as

part of the plea agreement. Following the state’s recitation of the facts underlying the

charges—which involve descriptions of Velesquez’s children living in filth and squalor

and being subjected to horrifying abuse and neglect—the trial court found Velesquez

guilty.

          {¶ 3} After imposing a prison term at the June 27, 2022 sentencing hearing, the

trial court stated that Velesquez could “work off [his] court costs while in custody.” It

did not expressly impose or refer to any other fees or costs, nor did it make any finding

with respect to Velesquez’s ability to pay financial sanctions.

          {¶ 4} In its June 28, 2022 final judgment, the trial court made the following

findings:

                 Defendant found to have, or reasonably may be expected to have, the

          means to pay all or part of the applicable costs of supervision, confinement,

2.
       and prosecution as authorized by law. Defendant ordered to reimburse the

       State of Ohio and Lucas County for such costs. This order of

       reimbursement is a judgment enforceable pursuant to law by the parties in

       whose favor it is entered.

       {¶ 5} Velesquez appeals his conviction, raising one assignment of error:

              Assignment of Error: The court improperly assigned costs of

       confinement and supervision in the judgment entry of sentencing, but not at

       the sentencing hearing, and without regard to appellant’s ability to pay.

                                    II. Law and Analysis

       {¶ 6} In his sole assignment of error, Velasquez argues that the trial court

improperly ordered him to pay the costs of confinement and supervision. “Our standard

of review on this issue is whether the imposition of costs was contrary to law.” State v.

Ivey, 6th Dist. No. L-19-1243, 2021-Ohio-2138, ¶ 7, citing R.C. 2953.08(A)(4) and

(G)(2)(b).

       {¶ 7} Velesquez concedes that the trial court “properly assessed” costs of

prosecution. Indeed, such costs are mandatory under R.C. 2947.23(A)(1)(a) (“In all

criminal cases, * * * the judge or magistrate shall include in the sentence the costs of

prosecution * * * and render a judgment against the defendant for such costs.”)

(Emphasis added.)

3.
       {¶ 8} Unlike the costs of prosecution, the costs of supervision and confinement are

discretionary. See R.C. 2929.18 (A)(5)(a) (“* * * the court imposing a sentence upon an

offender for a felony may sentence the offender to any financial sanction * * * including

the following: (i) [a]ll or part of the costs of implementing any community control

sanction, including a supervision fee under section 2951.021 of the Revised Code; (ii)

[a]ll or part of the costs of confinement under a sanction imposed pursuant to section

2929.14, 2929.142, or 2929.16 of the Revised Code.) (Emphasis added.)

       {¶ 9} If the court elects to impose discretionary costs, including the costs of

supervision or confinement, it must affirmatively find that the defendant has or

reasonably may be expected to have, the ability to pay. See R.C. 2929.19(A)(5) (“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”); see also Ivy at ¶ 8; State v. Eaton, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-18-1183, 2020-Ohio-

3208, ¶ 33. “When the record on appeal contains no evidence reflecting the trial court’s

consideration of present or future ability to pay these costs—such as consideration of

defendant’s age, health, employment history, or level of education—the imposition of

these costs is improper and must be vacated.” Ivy at ¶ 8, citing State v. Stovall, 6th Dist.

Lucas No. L-18-1048, 2019-Ohio-4287, ¶ 37 (Trial court’s statement that it reviewed a

PSI that included information on the defendant’s financial, educational, and vocational

background is sufficient to support imposition of discretionary costs).

4.
       {¶ 10} “Although the ‘best practice’ is for the trial court to put the basis for its

findings regarding a defendant’s ability to pay on the record, the trial court is not

required to explicitly make findings on the record.” (Emphasis in the original.) Ivy,

quoting State v. Taylor, 163 Ohio St.3d 508, 2020-Ohio-6786, 171 N.E.3d 290, ¶ 2. Nor

is the court required to consider any specific factors in reaching its determination about a

defendant’s ability to pay. Id. citing State v. VanCamp, 6th Dist. Wood No. WD-15-034,

2016-Ohio-2980, ¶ 10. Although the court need not conduct a formal hearing as to the

defendant’s ability to pay discretionary costs, a finding of a defendant’s ability to pay

“must be supported by clear and convincing evidence in the record.” State v. Wymer, 6th

Dist. Lucas No. L-18-1108, 2019-Ohio-1563, ¶ 14.

       {¶ 11} Here, the trial court did not impose the costs of supervision or confinement

during the sentencing hearing, nor did it expressly consider Velesquez’s present and

future ability to pay such costs at that hearing. However, it its final judgment entry, the

court stated that “[d]efendant found to have, or reasonably may be expected to have, the

means to pay all or part of the applicable costs of supervision [and] confinement * * * as

authorized by law.” Velasquez asks us to “find that the costs of supervision and

confinement included in the sentencing entry must be vacated * * *.”

       {¶ 12} As an initial matter, we note that the trial court did not order Velesquez to

pay any costs of supervision in the sentencing entry. Costs of supervision are not

applicable in this case because Velesquez was sentenced to prison. R.C. 2951.021(A)(1);

5.
See, e.g., State v. Eaton, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-18-1183, 2020-Ohio-3208, ¶ 33 (“The

costs of supervision are not at issue in this case because a prison term was imposed.”).

The trial court’s judgment entry specifies that Velesquez must “pay the cost assessed

pursuant to R.C. 9.92(C), 2929.18 and 2951.021 [i.e., costs of supervision] if not

sentenced to ODRC.” (Emphasis added.) Because Velesquez was sentenced to ODRC,

he was not ordered to pay costs of supervision. Accordingly, our analysis focuses on the

costs of confinement.

       {¶ 13} Velesquez argues that the trial court improperly imposed the costs of

confinement because it made no finding at the sentencing hearing regarding his ability to

pay. And, although the court subsequently made an ability-to-pay determination in the

judgment entry, Velesquez alleges that it was “conclusory” and not supported by any

evidence in the record. Notably, the state concedes error because it recognizes that we

have “previously found reversible error in similar situations,” and the state asks us “to

vacate only the portion of the sentencing entry pertaining to the costs of confinement and

supervision.”1

       {¶ 14} We agree with the parties. The trial court record is devoid of any evidence

to support the trial court’s determination that Velesquez has, or may be expected to have,

the means to pay costs of confinement. Wymer at ¶ 14 (a finding of a defendant’s ability

to pay “must be supported by clear and convincing evidence in the record”). According

1
 On March 14, 2023, the state filed a Notice of Conceded Error. See 6th Dist.Loc.R.
10(H).

6.
to the record, Velesquez is 32 years old, with a “maybe [a] tenth-grade education” and no

known employment history. He also suffers from an “altered mind” and “ongoing mental

health issues,” according to his sentencing memorandum. Contributing to his lack of

employability is the fact that he has just begun serving a minimum ten-year prison

sentence. Although he will still be a relatively young man when he is released, his lack

of education and employment, poor health, and criminal record indicate that it is

unreasonable to expect that Velesquez has or will have the financial ability to pay for his

costs of confinement.

       {¶ 15} In sum, based upon our review of the record, we find that the record does

not contain clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court’s determination that

Velesquez has, or reasonably may be expected to have, a present or future ability to pay

the costs of his confinement. Accord State v. Maloy, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-1-1350,

2011-Ohio-6919, ¶15 (Defendant lacks ability to pay where he did not finish high school,

has never been gainfully employed, and will be incarcerated until he is 94 years old).

       {¶ 16} For the above reasons, we find that the trial court’s imposition of the costs

of confinement was contrary to law. Therefore, we find Velesquez’s assignment of error

well-taken, in part, but not well-taken with respect to the costs of supervision, which

were not ordered in this case.

7.
                                       III. Conclusion

         {¶ 17} The June 28, 2022 judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas

is affirmed, in part, and reversed, in part. The portion of the trial court’s judgment that

requires Velesquez to pay the costs of confinement is hereby vacated. The remainder of

the judgment is affirmed. The state is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to

App.R. 24. It is so ordered.

                                                                 Judgment affirmed, in part,
                                                                      and reversed, in part.

       A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.

Christine E. Mayle, J.                           ____________________________
                                                         JUDGE
Gene A. Zmuda, J.
                                                 ____________________________
Charles E. Sulek, J.                                     JUDGE
CONCUR.
                                                 ____________________________
                                                         JUDGE

          This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
     Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
          version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
                   http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.

8.