Youngstown Daily Legal News

5th District says convicted rapist must pay court costs

JESSICA SHAMBAUGH
Special to the Legal News
Published: June 30, 2014

The 5th District Court of Appeals recently issued an opinion affirming a portion of a Richland County court’s decision ordering a man convicted of rape to pay court costs.

Randy Lamont Scott appealed a portion of his sentence pertaining to court costs to the three-judge appellate panel.

He asserted that the Richland County Court of Common Pleas improperly ordered him to pay court costs without notifying him or giving him the opportunity to object.

The facts of the case state that Scott was convicted of four counts of rape, four counts of sexual battery, four counts of gross sexual imposition and one count of kidnapping with a sexual motivation specification in August 2011.

The common pleas court sentenced him to an aggregate term of 26 1/2 years in prison and ordered him to “pay any restitution, all costs of prosecution, court appointed counsel costs and any fees permitted pursuant to R.C. 2929.18.”

He directly appealed his convictions to the Fifth District but did not assign any error related to the order to pay fines and costs at that time.

The appellate judges affirmed in part and reversed in part after finding that the trial court erred in sentencing Scott in light of the merger doctrine.

On remand, the common pleas court merged some of the counts but again sentenced him to an aggregate term of 26 1/2 years in prison.

It also ordered him once more to pay the costs of prosecution and his court-appointed counsel costs.

In July 2013, Scott filed a motion to waive those costs.

He argued that the trial court did not inform him of having to pay any fines or costs and unconstitutionally withdrew payment from his inmate account.

The lower court denied that motion and he appealed to the 5th District with the same arguments.

He also alleged that the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to hold a hearing to determine his ability to pay any fines or costs related to the case.

“A review of the resentencing entry indicates the trial court did not access restitution or fines. Therefore, this assignment of error pertains to court costs only,” Judge Sheila Farmer wrote for the court.

The appellate judges noted that, pursuant to the Ohio Revised Code, a trial court shall render judgment against the defendant for court costs in all criminal cases.

In Woods’ case, the common pleas court complied with that statute and he failed to object to that order at the time or resentencing and did not appeal the order.

“In fact, on June 24, 2013 after resentencing, appellant filed a motion to establish a payment plan for court costs, asking the trial court to raise his monthly payment from $2.00 to $3.00,” Judge Farmer wrote, noting that the motion indicated Woods was aware of the order.

Because he failed to object to the costs or raise the issue in his first appeal, Woods’ complaint is not barred by the doctrine of res judicata, according to the appellate court’s findings.

“The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Richland County, Ohio is hereby affirmed,” Judge Farmer wrote in conclusion.

Presiding Judge Scott Gwin and Judge Patricia Delaney joined Judge Farmer to form the majority.

The case is cited State v. Woods, 2014-Ohio-2374.

[Back]