State v. Morgan

2025 Ohio 821

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: March 6, 2025
• Docket: 24CA1205
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Morgan, 2025-Ohio-821.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ADAMS COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, :

Plaintiff-Appellant, : CASE NO. 24CA1205

v. :

STEVEN MORGAN, : DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY

Defendant-Appellee. :

_________________________________________________________________

APPEARANCES:

Aaron E. Haslam, Adams County Prosecuting Attorney, West Union, Ohio, for appellant.

Brian Goldberg, Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellee. _________________________________________________________________ CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM COMMON PLEAS COURT DATE JOURNALIZED:3-6-25 ABELE, J.

{¶1} This is an appeal from an Adams County Common Pleas Court

judgment that assessed court costs to the Adams County Prosecutor’s

Office. Aaron Haslam, Adams County Prosecutor, representing the

State of Ohio and the appellant herein, assigns the following error

for review.

“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT TAXED COURT COSTS TO THE PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE IN A CRIMINAL MATTER INSTEAD OF THE LITIGANT WHEN THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY WAS ACTING IN GOOD FAITH AND WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE MANDATED STATUTORY REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ADAMS, 24CA1205

2 LITIGANT, THE STATE OF OHIO, COUNTY OF ADAMS.”

{¶2} On March 26, 2024, the Adams County Grand Jury returned

an indictment that charged Steven Morgan with one count of domestic

violence in R.C. 2919.25(A), a fourth-degree felony. Subsequently,

the State of Ohio requested the trial court dismiss the matter. On

August 2, 2024, the court issued a Judgment Entry that (1)

dismissed the matter without prejudice, and (2) ordered that “costs

shall be taxed to the Prosecutor’s Office.”

{¶3} In its sole assignment of error, appellant asserts that

the trial court erroneously ordered the prosecutor’s office to pay

court costs associated with this matter. In particular, appellant

points out that R.C. 2947.23 governs the imposition of court costs

in criminal cases and requires courts to include the cost of

prosecution in a defendant’s sentence. However, the statute also

provides that courts may choose to waive, suspend or modify a

defendant’s costs. Appellant argues that in this matter the

prosecutor’s office is not a party to the action, but instead

serves in a representative capacity as legal counsel for one of the

parties to the action. Additionally, appellant indicates that no

evidence has been adduced in this proceeding to establish that the ADAMS, 24CA1205

3 prosecutor’s office acted in bad faith or outside the scope of its

statutory duties.

{¶4} Appellee argues that the defendant should not be assessed

court costs in this matter because no conviction occurred or

sentence imposed. Instead, the case resulted in a complete

dismissal. Appellee also cites State v. Shields (4th Dist.) 2023-

Ohio-2331 for the proposition that a court should not assess court

costs against a defendant in a dismissed criminal action. Rather,

costs should only be assessed against a defendant who has been

convicted and sentenced.

{¶5} After our review in the case sub judice, we agree with

appellant that the trial court improperly ordered the State of

Ohio’s legal representative to bear the court costs in this action.

Absent some unusual circumstance, such as bad faith, improper

activity by an officer of the court or some other sanctionable

conduct that a court should fully examine, along with proper notice

and an opportunity to be heard, a court may not specify that a

party’s legal representative should bear the costs of an action.

Moreover, as appellee points out, the assessment of costs in ADAMS, 24CA1205

4 dismissed cases are generally a matter of agreement between parties

to an action. Here, apparently no such agreement occurred and the

appellant should not bear the costs of this dismissed action.

{¶6} Accordingly, based upon the foregoing reasons, we sustain

appellant’s assignment of error and reverse the trial court’s

judgment.

JUDGMENT REVERSED REGARDING COURT COST ASSESSMENT. ADAMS, 24CA1205

JUDGMENT ENTRY

It is ordered that the judgment be reversed regarding court cost assessment. No costs shall be assessed in this appeal.

The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Adams County Common Pleas Court, to carry these judgments into execution.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute that mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Hess, J. & Wilkin, J.: Concur in Judgment & Opinion

For the Court ADAMS, 24CA1205

BY:_____________________________ Peter B. Abele, Judge

NOTICE TO COUNSEL

Pursuant to Local Rule No. 14, this document constitutes a final judgment entry and the time period for further appeal commences from the date of filing with the clerk.