The Akron Legal News

District Court rules trial court properly imposed fines despite defendant's indigence

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News
Published: May 22, 2013

The 2nd District Court of Appeals recently determined that the Clark County Court of Common Pleas properly sentenced a defendant in a drug possession case and properly imposed fines despite the defendant’s protests that he was indigent.

Michael Edwards was originally indicted on one count of possession of cocaine and one count of possession of heroin.

The charges arose out of events that took place on Oct. 4, 2011 when Edwards was stopped by Springfield police and arrested on an outstanding warrant.

On Dec. 20, 2011, Edwards was arrested again and was found to be in possession of heroin capsules for which he was also charged.

In another case, events that occurred on Feb. 2, 2012 led to charges of trafficking in drugs, illegal conveyance of weapons or prohibited items onto grounds of a detention center and two more counts of possession of cocaine and heroin.

Case summary stated that Edwards pleaded not guilty to the charges but later entered into a plea agreement, the terms of which required him to plead guilty to two charges of possessing heroin and one charge of possessing cocaine.

In exchange, the state agreed to dismiss the remaining charges.

The parties decided on a six-year prison term for the cocaine charge with the sentences for heroin possession to be served concurrently.

According to proceedings at the sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed the agreed-upon prison term but also ordered Edwards to pay a $10,000 fine on the cocaine charge and $1,500 for each of the heroin charges.

Edwards’ court-appointed counsel did not file an affidavit of indigency prior to the hearing but instead requested the court suspend the balance of the fines after the it applied $254 of seized money to the fines and court costs.

The defense indicated that Edwards was indigent at that time but the court denied the request.

Edwards assigned two errors to the trial court upon his appeal. He claimed the court incorrectly failed to determine he was indigent for the purpose of imposing fines.

He also asserted that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file an affidavit prior to the dispositional hearing.

In his written decision on behalf of the court, Judge Jeffrey Welbaum wrote that the trial court made no specific finding about Edward’s ability to pay.

However, Edwards contended that because the court imposed fines that were less than the mandatory minimum fines for his charges, it must have determined that Edwards could not pay the mandatory amount.

Welbaum pointed to an earlier 2nd District appeal in which the appellate court found, “Although the defendant’s fine was mandatory, the trial court still was obligated to consider his ‘present and future ability to pay.’”

The case indicated that a hearing on a defendant’s ability to pay is not required, nor is a court required to make findings. A court only needs to “consider” a defendant’s ability to pay.

“In the case before us, the trial court did not make findings pertaining to Edwards’ ability to pay,” wrote Welbaum. “However, this was not required.”

Transcripts of the court proceedings showed that the trial court inquired about Edwards’ past employment and age.

The court also asked whether Edwards had any physical problems that could preclude employment.

The three-judge appellate panel held the trial court “reasonably concluded” that the defendant would have the ability to pay the fines and that it did not abuse its discretion in requiring Edwards to pay those fines.

The state also noted in its brief that the fines imposed for Edwards’ felony heroin charges should have been $5,000, rather than the $1,500 fines imposed at the sentencing hearing.

The Ohio Revised Code provides that, “If an offender alleges in an affidavit filed with the court prior to sentencing that he is indigent and unable to pay the mandatory fine and if the court determines the offender is an indigent person ... the court shall not impose the mandatory fine upon the offender.”

The appellate panel noted that Edwards had qualified as indigent for the purposes of obtaining court-appointed counsel.

“We were not persuaded, however,” Welbaum wrote for the court. “Because the trial court was aware of this fact when it found that (the defendant) could pay a fine.”

Welbaum cited State v. Lewis and noted that the court stressed, “Although indigency for purposes of receiving appointed counsel could be sufficient for a court to waive a mandatory fine, that fact alone is not coextensive with a reasonable probability that the trial court would have waived the fine if his attorney had filed an affidavit.”

Welbaum determined that a finding of indigence for the purposes of appointing counsel does not shield a defendant from paying a fine.

“The ability to pay a fine over time is not equivalent to the ability to pay legal counsel a retainer fee at the onset of criminal proceedings,” Welbaum wrote.

In similar cases, the appellate panel “focused on the defendant’s relative youth, his ability to understand the criminal charges and his plea and the fact that he was able-bodied enough to manufacture drugs.”

Welbaum wrote that, though the trial court knew that Edwards was indigent when it came to appointing counsel, it found that he “did not have any physical impediments that would preclude employment” upon his release from prison.

The appellate panel determined that Edwards’ trial counsel was effective despite its failure to file an affidavit of indigency prior to sentencing.

The panel subsequently overruled both of Edwards’ assignments of error and sustained the sentence and fines of the trial court.

Presiding Judge Mike Fain and Judge Mary Donovan concurred.

The case is cited State v. Edwards, 2013-Ohio-1922.

[Back]