Login | March 29, 2024

Man convicted of attempted murder forced to pay court costs

JESSICA SHAMBAUGH
Special to the Legal News

Published: March 5, 2015

The 5th District Court of Appeals recently rejected a man’s argument that he should not have to pay court costs in a case convicting him of attempted murder and felonious assault.

The three-judge appellate panel found that the Richland County Court of Common Pleas properly gave Kenneth Hill plenty of time to challenge his ability to pay court costs.

“Because appellant failed to object or appeal the order of court costs, the issue is res judicata as defined in State v. Perry,” 5th District Judge Craig Baldwin wrote, citing the 1967 case that barred defendants from raising a new argument that could have been raised at trial or on direct appeal.

The facts of the case state that a jury convicted Hill of attempted murder with a firearm specification, felonious assault with a firearm specification and having weapons under disability in 2008.

After the sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered Hill to serve an aggregate term of 18 years in prison and five years of post-release control.

It further ordered him to pay court costs and restitution for his victim’s medical expenses, the amount of restitution, however, was not specified.

Hill appealed his sentence, but the 5th District dismissed that appeal after finding there was no final appealable order.

He was then resentenced and ordered to pay court costs and an unspecified amount of restitution.

That sentence was properly filed and Hill appealed once again.

The 5th District affirmed the lower court’s judgment and Hill filed a motion for resentencing in July 2011, which the trial court overruled.

Hill later filed a motion for issuance of a final appealable order, claiming his sentencing entry was not final because it failed to specify an amount of restitution.

Finding that the victim failed to submit any medical bills, the trial court amended its sentencing entry to show that no restitution was owed.

Hill subsequently filed a motion to waive the payment of court costs. He argued that the trial court did not afford him the opportunity to challenge his ability to pay those costs and they should now be waived.

The trial court denied that motion and Hill appealed to the 5th District.

“In this case, the trial court accessed judgment against appellant as required by statute. Appellant did not object to the payment of court costs at the time of sentencing, and did not raise the issue of court costs in his direct appeal. Nor did appellant appeal from the trial court’s Nov. 14, 2012 Second Amended Sentencing Entry which ordered appellant to pay court costs,” Baldwin wrote.

Finding that Hill was aware of his financial situation and the court’s intention to impose costs at sentencing and on appeal, the appellate judges ruled that his latest appeal was barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

Presiding Judge William Hoffman and Judge Patricia Delaney concurred.

The case is cited State v. Hill, 2015-Ohio-335.

Copyright © 2015 The Daily Reporter - All Rights Reserved


[Back]