State v. Richardson

2024 Ohio 2840

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Richardson, 2024-Ohio-2840.]

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

State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. L-24-1008

Appellee Trial Court No. CR0202203016

v.

Armon Richardson DECISION AND JUDGMENT

Appellant Decided: July 26, 2024

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

Laurel A. Kendall, for appellant. *****

ZMUDA, J.

I. Introduction

{¶ 1} This matter is before the court on appeal from the Lucas County Court of

Common Pleas judgment of December 18, 2023, imposing costs as part of sentencing.

For the reasons that follow, we reverse, in part, and vacate the discretionary costs ordered

by the trial court.

II. Facts and Procedural History

{¶ 2} On December 6, 2022, appellant, Armon Richardson, was indicted on two

counts of aggravated vehicular homicide, one count of aggravated vehicular assault, and

one count of vehicular assault, all arising from a traffic accident on March 16, 2022. On that date, appellant accelerated to 80-90 m.p.h. to beat a red light and struck another

vehicle as it attempted to turn, killing the driver and seriously injuring the driver’s 15-

year-old daughter. As a result of plea negotiations, appellant entered a guilty plea to one

count of aggravated vehicular homicide in violation of R.C. 2903.06(A)(2)(a) and (B), a

felony of the third degree, and one count of vehicular assault in violation of R.C.

2903.08(A)(2)(b) and (C), a felony of the fourth degree. The state agreed to request

dismissal of the remaining counts at sentencing. The trial court accepted the plea, found

appellant guilty, and continued the matter for sentencing.

{¶ 3} On December 18, 2023, the trial court held a sentencing hearing. Appellant

acknowledged his reckless conduct as a “terrible lapse in judgment” and acknowledged

the pain caused to his victim’s families because of his actions. The trial court imposed an

aggregate prison term of 72 months. The trial court also suspended appellant’s driver’s

license for 30 years, and pursuant to the plea agreement, dismissed the remaining counts

in the indictment. The trial court did not address costs at sentencing, but in the written

sentencing entry, ordered the following concerning costs:

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, 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. Defendant further ordered to pay the costs assessed pursuant to R.C. 9.92(C), 2929.18 and 2951.021 if not sentenced to ODRC. Notification pursuant to R.C. 2947.23 given.

2. III. Assignment of Error

{¶ 4} Appellant raises the following assignment of error in this appeal:

I. The court improperly assigned costs of supervision, confinement and

prosecution in the judgment entry of sentencing, but not at the sentencing

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

IV. Analysis

{¶ 5} The sole issue on appeal concerns the imposition of costs in the sentencing

entry, after the trial court failed to address costs at the sentencing hearing. We will reverse

if the imposition of costs is contrary to law. State v. Ali, 2024-Ohio-486, ¶ 6 (6th Dist.),

citing State v. Velesquez, 2023-Ohio-1100, ¶ 6 (6th Dist.), quoting State v. Ivey, 2021-

Ohio-2138, ¶ 7 (6th Dist.); R.C. 2953.08(A)(4) and (G)(2)(b).

{¶ 6} The parties concede that costs of prosecution are mandatory costs, pursuant

to R.C. 2947.23(A)(1)(a). Additionally, the costs of supervision are not “applicable” in

appellant’s case, as he was sentenced to a prison term. See State v. Eaton, 2020-Ohio-

3208, ¶ 33 (6th Dist.).

{¶ 7} As to the remaining costs, the cost of confinement, the state acknowledges

our precedent, reversing these costs where the trial court failed to impose them at the time

of sentencing. See State v. Henderson, 2023-Ohio-4576, ¶ 17 (6th Dist.); Ali at ¶ 11,

Velesquez at ¶ 12-13; State v. Stovall, 2019-Ohio-4287, ¶ 37 (6th Dist.). R.C.

2929.18(A)(5)(ii) permits a trial court to impose costs of confinement as part of sentence.

However, these costs must be imposed “on the record at the sentencing hearing and in the

judgment entry.” State v. Patterson, 2024-Ohio-2198, ¶ 13 (6th Dist.), citing Ali at ¶ 8.

3. Because the trial court failed to impose costs of confinement at sentencing, it could not

add those costs to the judgment entry. Patterson at ¶ 13.

{¶ 8} Accordingly, we find the sole assignment of error well-taken, in part, as to

the imposition of costs of supervision and confinement. We otherwise affirm the

judgment as to the imposition of mandatory costs of prosecution pursuant to R.C.

2947.23

V. Conclusion

{¶ 9} We affirm the judgment, in part, and reverse only as to the imposition of

discretionary costs. We vacate the portion of the judgment imposing costs of supervision

and confinement. The parties are ordered to split the costs of this appeal pursuant to

App.R. 24.

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

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. ____________________________ Myron C. Duhart, 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/.

4.