Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 05-15-2020

Case Style:

STATE OF OHIO v. ROSS M. MCWAY

Case Number: 1-19-65

Judge: William R. Zimmerman

Court: IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT ALLEN COUNTY

Plaintiff's Attorney: Jana E. Emerick

Defendant's Attorney:

Need help finding a lawyer for representation for denying his motion to waive, suspend, or modify payment of costs in Ohio?

Call 918-582-6422. It's Free



Description:

MoreLaw Receptionists
VOIP Phone and Virtual Receptionist Services
Call 918-582-6422 Today


In 2017, McWay was convicted of aggravated murder and sentenced to
life without parole. State v. McWay, 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-17-42, 2018-Ohio-3618,
¶ 7; (Doc. No. 96). This court affirmed McWay’s conviction and sentence on
September 10, 2018. Id. at ¶ 29.1

{¶3} On September 23, 2019, McWay, pro se, filed a motion to “vacate”
costs. (Doc. No. 131). That same day, the trial court denied McWay’s motion.
(Doc. No. 132).
{¶4} On October 21, 2019, McWay filed a notice of appeal. (Doc. No. 135).
He raises one assignment of error for our review.
Assignment of Error
Trial court erred when it imposed court cost without assessing the
defendant’s ability to pay. State-v-Maloy 6th dist. Lucas no. L-10-
1350,2011-Ohio-6919,14 citing State-v-Jobe 6th dist. Lucas no. L07 -1413,2009-Ohio-4066,80.

1
In McWay’s direct appeal, this court recited much of the factual and procedural background of this case,
and we will not duplicate those efforts here. See State v. McWay, 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-17-42, 2018-Ohio3618.
Case No. 1-19-65
-3-
{¶5} In his assignment of error, McWay argues that the trial court erred by
denying his motion to “vacate” costs. Specifically, McWay argues that “the trial
court did not make a determination during sentencing in regards to [his] assets,
education, employment history or ability to pay, and [he] has been sentenced to life
without parole.” (Appellant’s Brief at 2).
Standard of Review
{¶6} We review a trial court’s decision denying an indigent criminal
defendant’s post-judgment motion to waive, suspend, or modify payment of costs
under an abuse-of-discretion standard. State v. Burmeister, 11th Dist. Portage No.
2019-P-0053, 2019-Ohio-4927, ¶ 12; State v. Threatt, 108 Ohio St.3d 277, 2006-
Ohio-905, paragraph four of the syllabus, superseded by statute on other grounds,
State v. Braden, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2019-Ohio-4204. See also Braden at ¶ 30. An
abuse of discretion suggests that a decision is unreasonable, arbitrary, or
unconscionable. State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151, 157-158 (1980).
Analysis
{¶7} “R.C. 2947.23 requires a trial court to assess costs against all criminal
defendants, even if the defendant is indigent.” State v. Clinton, 153 Ohio St.3d 422,
2017-Ohio-9423, ¶ 239. If a defendant moves to waive, suspend, or modify costs,
the trial court, in its discretion, may waive, suspend, or modify payment of those
costs. State v. Hanford, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 106220, 2018-Ohio-1309, ¶ 17,
Case No. 1-19-65
-4-
citing State v. Brown, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 103427, 2016-Ohio-1546, ¶ 13 and
State v. Walker, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 101213, 2014-Ohio-4841, ¶ 9. A “trial
court ‘retains jurisdiction to waive, suspend, or modify the payment of the costs of
prosecution * * *, at the time of sentencing or any time thereafter.’” Id., quoting
R.C. 2947.23(C).
{¶8} In this case, the trial court denied McWay’s motion after concluding
that he “has a present or future ability to pay the court costs imposed. Pursuant to
Ohio Admin. Code 5120-3-05, [McWay] can get paid if he works while in prison.”
(Doc. No. 132). Because the trial court considered whether to exercise its discretion
to waive McWay’s costs under R.C. 2947.23(C), we cannot say that the trial court
abused its discretion by denying McWay’s motion.2
See State v. Montgomery, 8th
Dist. Cuyahoga No. 108179, 2019-Ohio-4790, ¶ 19-20; State v. Kelley, 5th Dist.
Stark No. 2018CA00062, 2018-Ohio-5372, ¶ 19; State v. Braden, 10th Dist.
Franklin No. 17AP-48, 2019-Ohio-5256, ¶ 1, 5 (remanding the case to the trial court
for it to consider “whether to exercise its discretion to waive Braden’s court costs
pursuant to R.C. 2947.23(C)” following the Supreme Court of Ohio’s conclusion
that the statute “‘authorizes trial courts to waive, suspend or modify the payment of
court costs imposed both before and after its effective date’”), quoting Braden, ___

2
The Supreme Court of Ohio is presently considering what a trial court must consider when exercising its
discretion in ruling on a post-judgment motion to waive, suspend, or modify the payment of court costs. State
v. Taylor, 153 Ohio St.3d 1467, 2018-Ohio-3450; State v. Taylor, 154 Ohio St.3d 1463, 2018-Ohio-5209.
Case No. 1-19-65
-5-
Ohio St.3d ___, 2019-Ohio-4204, at ¶ 31. See also State v. Copeland, 2d Dist.
Montgomery No. 26842, 2016-Ohio-7797, ¶ 12; State v. Taylor, 2d Dist.
Montgomery No. 27539, 2018-Ohio-1649, ¶ 19, appeal accepted, 153 Ohio St.3d
1467, 2018-Ohio-3450.
{¶9} McWay’s assignment of error is overruled.

Outcome: Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant herein in the
particulars assigned and argued, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: