[Cite as State v. Scott,
2014-Ohio-2374.]
COURT OF APPEALS
RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES:
: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J.
: Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
-vs- :
:
RANDY L. SCOTT : Case No. 13CA110
:
Defendant-Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Court of Common
Pleas, Case No. 2010-CR-313H
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT: June 2, 2014
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
JOHN C. NIEFT RANDY L. SCOTT, Pro Se
38 South Park Street Inmate No. A604-323
Mansfield, OH 44902 Trumbull Correctional Institution
5701 Burnett Road
Leavittsburg, OH 44430
Richland County, Case No. 13CA110 2
Farmer, J.
{¶1} On August 22, 2011, appellant, Randy Lamont Scott, was convicted of
four counts of rape in violation of R.C. 2907.02, four counts of sexual battery in violation
of R.C. 2907.03, four counts of gross sexual imposition in violation of R.C.
2907.05(A)(1), and one count of kidnapping with a sexual motivation specification in
violation of R.C. 2905.01. By sentencing entry filed August 26, 2011, the trial court
sentenced appellant to an aggregate term of twenty-six and a half years in prison and
ordered him to "pay any restitution, all costs of prosecution, court appointed counsel
costs and any fees permitted pursuant to R.C. 2929.18."
{¶2} Appellant filed an appeal. Appellant did not assign as error the order to
pay fines and costs. This court affirmed in part and reversed in part appellant's
convictions, finding the trial court erred in sentencing appellant in light of the merger
doctrine. State v. Scott, 5th Dist. Richland No. 11CA80, 2012-Ohio-3482. Upon
remand, by resentencing entry filed October 31, 2012, the trial court merged some of
the counts and again sentenced appellant to an aggregate term of twenty-six and a half
years in prison, and ordered him to "pay any restitution, all costs of prosecution, court
appointed counsel costs and any fees permitted pursuant to R.C. 2929.18." Appellant
did not appeal his resentence or the issue of paying fines and costs.
{¶3} On July 29, 2013, appellant filed a motion for waiver of restitution, all costs
of prosecution, court appointed counsel costs and any fees permitted pursuant to R.C.
2929.18 and 2949.092. Appellant argued the trial court had erred in failing to inform
him in court of having to pay fines and costs. By judgment entry filed August 16, 2013,
the trial court denied the motion.
Richland County, Case No. 13CA110 3
{¶4} Appellant filed an appeal and this matter is now before this court for
consideration. Assignments of error are as follows:
I
{¶5} "THE TRIAL JUDGE, ABUSED HIS DISCRETION BY DENYING THE
APPELLANT OF HIS FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHT UNDER THE
DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES BY
NOT HOLDING A HEARING TO DETERMINE THE APPELLANT'S ABILITY TO PAY
FINES AND COSTS RELATED TO THIS CASE."
II
{¶6} "THE TRIAL JUDGE DENIED APPELLANT HIS FIFTH AND
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHT UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE BY NOT
INFORMING THE APPELLANT DURING SENTENCING THAT HE WOULD BE
RESPONSIBLE FOR SAID COST AND FINES, TO ALLOW THE APPELLANT TO
OBJECT, THEN UNCONSTITUIONALLY WITHDRAWING PAYMENT FROM THE
INDIGENT APPELLANT'S INMATE ACCOUNT."
I, II
{¶7} Appellant claims the trial court erred in failing to hold a hearing on his
ability to pay fines and costs, and not informing him during sentencing that he would be
responsible for said fines and costs. We disagree.
{¶8} A review of the resentencing entry indicates the trial court did not access
restitution or fines. Therefore, this assignment pertains to court costs only. Pursuant to
R.C. 2947.23(A)(1)(a), a trial court in all criminal cases shall render judgment against a
defendant for court costs. In this case, the trial court accessed court costs against
Richland County, Case No. 13CA110 4
appellant as required by statute. Appellant did not object to the payment of court costs
at the time of resentencing, and did not appeal the order. In fact, on June 24, 2013 after
resentencing, appellant filed a motion to establish a payment plan for court costs,
asking the trial court to raise his monthly payment from $2.00 to $3.00. The trial court
denied the motion. See, Judgment Entry filed July 2, 2013.
{¶9} Because appellant failed to object or appeal the order of court costs, the
issue is res judicata as defined in State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967), paragraph
nine of the syllabus:
Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment of conviction
bars a convicted defendant who was represented by counsel from raising
and litigating in any proceeding except an appeal from that judgment, any
defense or any claimed lack of due process that was raised or could have
been raised by the defendant at trial, which resulted in that judgment of
conviction, or on an appeal from that judgment.
See, State v. Threatt, 108 Ohio St.3d 277 (2006); State v. Snelling, 5th Dist. Richland
No. 13CA3,
2013-Ohio-4180.
{¶10} Assignments of Error I and II are denied.
Richland County, Case No. 13CA110 5
{¶11} The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Richland County, Ohio is
hereby affirmed.
By Farmer, J.
Gwin, P.J. and
Delaney, J. concur.
SGF/sg 512
