[Cite as State v. Jefferson,
2025-Ohio-2008.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
STATE OF OHIO, :
Plaintiff- Appellee, :
No. 114457
v. :
FREDERICK JEFFERSON, JR., :
Defendant-Appellant. :
_______________________________________
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: June 5, 2025
_________________
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case Nos. CR-23-680636-A, CR-23-681314-B, CR-24-689643-A,
CR-24-690973-A, and CR-24-692954-B
Appearances:
Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
Attorney, and Matthew W. Moretto, Assistant Prosecuting
Attorney, for appellee.
Cullen Sweeney, Cuyahoga County Public Defender, and
Aaron T. Baker, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, J.:
Defendant-appellant, Frederick Jefferson, Jr. (“Jefferson”), challenges
the trial court’s imposition of a $5,000 fine imposed on his conviction for failure to
comply, a felony of the third degree. Jefferson argues that the trial court not only
erred in imposing the fine, but that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to
object to the imposition of the fine. Prior to imposing the fine, the trial court
reviewed the presentence-investigation report, demonstrating that the trial court
considered the defendant’s present and future ability to pay the financial sanction
and there is nothing in the record indicating that had defense counsel objected, the
outcome would have been different. For these reasons, we affirm the judgment of
the trial court.
I. Procedural History and Relevant Facts.
On August 5, 2024, Jefferson entered into a global plea agreement with
the State of Ohio (the “State”) in five separate cases: Cuyahoga C.P.
Nos. CR-24-689643, CR-24-690973, CR-24-692954, CR-23-680636, and
CR-23-681314. Jefferson’s assignments of error focus solely on the $5,000 fine
imposed in Case No. CR-24-689643. As such, our procedural accounting will focus
on Case No. CR-24-689643.
In Case No. CR-24-689643, Jefferson pleaded guilty to one count of
failure to comply with order, signal of police officer, a felony of the third degree, in
violation of R.C. 2921.331(B); one count of attempted having weapons while under
disability, a felony of the fourth degree, in violation of R.C. 2923.02/2923.12(A)(2);
one count of attempted receiving property, a felony of the fifth degree, in violation
of R.C. 2913.51(A); and one count of drug possession, a felony of the fourth degree,
in violation of R.C. 2925.11, with a one-year firearm specification. The court
accepted Jefferson’s pleas of guilt, set a sentencing date, and referred Jefferson to
the county probation department for a presentence-investigation report.
Sentencing was held on September 3, 2024. Prior to sentencing, the
trial court indicated that it had reviewed the presentence-investigation report, along
with a sentencing memorandum and letters of support filed by Jefferson. In Case
No. CR-24-689643, the court sentenced Jefferson to 36 months on the failure to
comply count; 16 months on the attempted having weapons while under disability
count; 11 months on the attempted receiving property count; and 18 months on the
drug possession offense, to run consecutive to one year imposed on the firearm
specification. The counts were ordered to be run consecutively for a total stated
prison term of 7 years, 9 months. This sentence was ordered to run concurrent to
the remaining cases.
The trial court also imposed a fine of $5,000 with respect to the
failure to comply offense. The court waived all fines in the remaining cases.
Jefferson’s defense counsel did not object to the trial court’s imposition of fines.
Jefferson filed a notice of appeal on each of the sentencing entries
issued by the trial court. On appeal, Jefferson only challenges the trial court’s
imposition of the $5,000 fine imposed in Case No. CR-24-689643. Jefferson
presents two assignments of error for our review:
1. Trial counsel for Mr. Jefferson failed to provide effective assistance
of counsel, guaranteed by both the United States Constitution and the
Ohio Constitution, when he failed to object to the fine of $5,000 at
sentencing.
2. The trial court committed plain error by sanctioning Mr. Jefferson
with a fine of $5,000.
II. Law and Analysis
Each of Jefferson’s assignments of error are premised on the validity of
the $5,000 fine imposed in Case No. CR-24-689643. For ease of discussion, we will
address Jefferson’s assignments of error together, focusing on his second assigned
error.
A. Standard of review
Jefferson did not object to the trial court’s imposition of the $5,000
fine. As such, we review this issue for plain error. State v. Mosby, 2024-Ohio-5210,
¶ 63 (8th Dist.) (recognizing that where a defendant fails to challenge imposition of
fines in the trial court the defendant waives all but plain error.) “‘In order prevail
under a plain error analysis, the appellant bears the burden of demonstrating that
the outcome of the proceedings clearly would have been different but for the error.’”
State v. Wagner,
2024-Ohio-5394, ¶ 14 (8th Dist.), quoting State v. Harris,
2012-Ohio-802, ¶ 9 (8th Dist.). “We are to notice plain error ‘with the utmost
caution, under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a manifest
miscarriage of justice.’”
Id., quoting State v. Rogers,
2015-Ohio-2459, ¶ 23.
B. The trial court did not commit plain error by imposing a $5,000
fine.
Prior to imposing a financial sanction, a trial court is required to
“consider a defendant’s present and future ability to pay the amount of the financial
sanction or fine.” R.C. 2929.19(B)(5). Jefferson alleges that the trial court failed to
comply with this requirement.
“There are no express factors the court must take into consideration
or findings regarding the offender’s ability to pay that must be made on the record.”
Mosby at ¶ 64, citing State v. Cotto,
2019-Ohio-985, ¶ 12 (8th Dist.). Nor is there
any requirement “that the trial court state on the record that it affirmatively
considered the defendant’s present and future ability to pay a financial sanction at
the time of sentencing.”
Id., citing State v. Petticrew,
2023-Ohio-159, ¶ 19 (2d Dist.).
“Nevertheless, the record should contain evidence that the trial court considered the
defendant’s present and future ability to pay before imposing the financial sanction.”
Id. It can be inferred that the trial court considered the defendant’s present and
future ability to pay the financial sanction, “where the trial court reviews a
presentence-investigation report that contains information about the defendant’s
age, health, education, and work history.”
Id., citing State v. Clemons, 2015-Ohio-
520, ¶ 10 (8th Dist.); State v. Willis,
2012-Ohio-294, ¶ 4 (2d Dist.).
Here, the record reflects that prior to imposing the $5,000 fine, the
trial court indicated that it had reviewed the presentence-investigation report
prepared by the probation department. The presentence-investigation report
contains information regarding Jefferson’s age, education, physical and mental
health, and employment history. This information in the report is sufficient from
which a trial court could reasonably conclude that Jefferson has the present or
future ability to pay the imposed fine.
Since the trial court reviewed the presentence-investigation report
prior to imposing a fine, it can be inferred that the trial court considered Jefferson’s
present and future ability to pay the fine. As such, we cannot conclude that the trial
court committed error, plain or otherwise, in imposing the fine. Jefferson’s second
assignment of error is overruled.
C. Jefferson’s trial counsel was not ineffective
In his first assigned error for review, Jefferson alleges that his trial
counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to object to the trial court’s
imposition of the $5,000 fine. We disagree.
In order to substantiate a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, a
defendant must satisfy a two-prong test. “First, there must be a determination as to
whether there has been a substantial violation of any of defense counsel’s essential
duties to his client.” State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 141 (1989). To establish
this first prong, a defendant must show that “‘counsel’s representation fell below an
objective standard of reasonableness.’”
Id. at 142, quoting Strickland v.
Washington,
466 U.S. 668, 687-688 (1984). “‘[B]ecause of the difficulties inherent
in making [such an] evaluation, a court must indulge a strong presumption that
counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.’”
Bradley at 142, quoting
Strickland at 689.
“‘[Second], and analytically separate from the question of whether the
defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights were violated, there must be a determination
as to whether the defense was prejudiced by counsel’s ineffectiveness.’” Bradley at
141-142. Accordingly, in order to establish that one has been “prejudiced by
counsel’s deficient performance, the defendant must prove that there exists a
reasonable probability that, were it not for counsel’s errors, the result of the trial
would be different.”
Id. at 143.
Jefferson claims that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object
to the imposition of the $5,000 fine, alleging that the record does not justify the
imposition of the fine. However, as discussed above, the trial court ordered and
reviewed a copy of the presentence-investigation report prepared by the probation
department prior to imposing the fine. Again, the report included information
regarding the Jefferson’s age, education, physical and mental health, and
employment history. This information contained in the report is sufficient from
which a trial court could reasonably conclude that Jefferson has the ability to pay
the imposed fine. As such, we cannot say that Jefferson’s trial counsel fell below an
objective standard of reasonableness by failing to object to an alleged error where
none exists.
With respect to the second prong, Jefferson makes no argument that
the result would have been different. To that extent Jefferson fails to direct this
court to anything in the record indicating that he did not have the present or future
ability to pay the fine. Nor does he direct this court to any evidence in the record
contradicting the presentence-investigation report reviewed by the trial court. Even
if trial counsel’s failure to object to the imposition of the $5,000 fine did fall below
an objective standard of reasonableness, we cannot reasonably say that the trial
court would not have imposed the fine, nor that the outcome would have been
different.
For these reasons, Jefferson failed to demonstrate that his trial
counsel was constitutionally ineffective and, therefore, his first assignment of error
is overruled.
III. Conclusion
We affirm the trial court’s sanction of the $5,000 fine imposed on
Jefferson’s failure-to-comply offense. Prior to imposing the fine, the trial court
indicated that it had reviewed the presentence-investigation report, which included
information sufficient to demonstrate Jefferson’s present and future ability to pay
the fine. As a result, no error occurred.
Jefferson further failed to demonstrate that his trial counsel’s
representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, nor is there any
evidence in the record indicating that had his counsel objected the outcome would
have been different. As a result, he failed to demonstrate that he received ineffective
assistance of counsel.
Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the
common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant’s
conviction having been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case
remanded to the trial court for execution of sentence.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27
of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
___________________________
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, JUDGE
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, A.J., and
DEENA R. CALABRESE, J., CONCUR
