State v. Finfrock

Summary

The Third District Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed Joseph W. Finfrock’s sentence for failure to verify his address under Ohio’s sex-offender registration laws. The court held that Ohio law permits a prison term to run consecutively to an out-of-state prison term and that extradition expenses are costs of prosecution that the trial court must assess, although collection from an indigent defendant is limited. Both assignments of error were overruled.

Holdings

1. R.C. 2929.41(B)(2) expressly authorizes an Ohio court to order an Ohio felony prison term to be served consecutively to a prison term imposed by another state or the United States. Because R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) concerns prison terms imposed under Ohio law, the appellate court's review of the consecutive sentence involving Minnesota was limited to whether the sentence was otherwise contrary to law under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b). Finfrock failed to clearly and convincingly establish that his sentence was contrary to law.
2. A trial court is required under R.C. 2947.23(A)(1) to assess prosecution costs against every convicted defendant, including an indigent defendant. R.C. 2949.14 limits the clerk's ability to collect extradition and other costs from a nonindigent felony defendant but does not prohibit the court from assessing those costs. Extradition expenses are costs of prosecution because bringing the accused within the court's jurisdiction is necessary for the prosecution to proceed.
3. Because Finfrock did not object to the order assessing prosecution costs, review was limited to plain error. He did not establish an obvious, outcome-determinative error resulting in a sentence contrary to law.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court could impose Finfrock's Ohio prison term consecutively to a prison term imposed by Minnesota under R.C. 2929.41(B)(2).
2. Whether the trial court erred by assessing prosecution costs, including extradition costs, against Finfrock after finding him indigent.

Disposition

affirmed