Summary
The Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed Anthony Biehler’s 17-month prison sentence and the trial court’s order that he pay the costs of the action. The court held that the judgment imposed only mandatory costs, which do not require a finding of ability to pay, and that any contrary language in the judgment was surplusage.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the sentencing entry imposed nonmandatory costs of supervision or confinement, requiring a finding of ability to pay and supporting evidence, when it ordered Biehler to pay "the costs of this action."
- Whether the trial court's ability-to-pay language had legal effect when the only costs imposed were mandatory costs.
Holdings
- The phrase "the costs of this action" imposed only mandatory prosecution costs and mandatory fees; it did not impose nonmandatory costs of supervision or confinement.
- The trial court's statement that Biehler was likely to have the future ability to pay was surplusage and had no effect because mandatory costs are imposed regardless of ability to pay.
Key quotations
“The "costs of this action" are the only costs that the trial court’s judgment imposes.” (¶ 8)
“The judgment imposes only mandatory costs, and therefore, Biehler cannot be required to pay any nonmandatory costs.” (¶ 9)
“Judgment affirmed. Biehler is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24.” (¶ 10)
Factual background
Biehler pleaded guilty to trespass in a habitation and violating a protection order. The trial court initially imposed community control, reserving a 17-month prison sentence, but later imposed that sentence after Biehler admitted violating probation by testing positive for cocaine and failing to report for treatment. The court did not address costs at the sentencing hearing, but its subsequent sentencing entry stated that Biehler was responsible for "the costs of this action" and found that he was likely to have the future ability to pay.
Procedural history
Biehler pleaded guilty to an amended count of trespass in a habitation and to violating a protection order. The trial court initially imposed community control and reserved a 17-month prison term. After Biehler admitted a probation violation, the court imposed the reserved prison term and journalized an entry stating that he was responsible for the costs of the action. The State conceded error regarding nonmandatory costs, but the appellate court affirmed because the entry imposed only mandatory costs.