State v. Pettway , 2013 Ohio 1348 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as State v. Pettway, 
    2013-Ohio-1348
    .]
    Court of Appeals of Ohio
    EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
    JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
    No. 98836
    STATE OF OHIO
    PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
    vs.
    TIMOTHY PETTWAY
    DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
    JUDGMENT:
    AFFIRMED
    Criminal Appeal from the
    Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
    Case No. CR-498474
    BEFORE:           Blackmon, J., Stewart, A.J., and Kilbane, J.
    RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED:                     April 4, 2013
    FOR APPELLANT
    Timothy Pettway, Pro Se
    Inmate #550-655
    Toledo Correctional Institution
    2001 E. Central Avenue
    Toledo, Ohio 43608
    ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
    Timothy J. McGinty
    Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
    By: Mary H. McGrath
    Assistant County Prosecutor
    8th Floor Justice Center
    1200 Ontario Street
    Cleveland, Ohio 44113
    PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, J.:
    {¶1} Timothy Pettway (“Pettway”) appeals pro se the trial court’s imposition of
    court costs and assigns the following error for our review:
    The trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion to remand
    sentencing for the limited purpose of allowing defendant to move trial
    court for a waiver of the payment of court cost per State v. Joseph, 
    125 Ohio St.3d 76
    .
    {¶2} Having reviewed the record and pertinent law, we affirm the trial court’s
    judgment. The apposite facts follow.
    {¶3} In May 2008, Pettway was convicted of murder and one-and-three-year
    firearm specifications.   The trial court sentenced him to 18-years to life in prison.
    Pettway filed a direct appeal of his conviction; this court affirmed his conviction in State
    v. Pettway, 8th Dist. No. 91716, 
    2009-Ohio-4544
    . Thereafter, Pettway filed various pro
    se motions in the trial court, including his November 14, 2011 “Motion to Remand
    Sentencing for the Limited Purpose of Allowing Defendant to Move Trial Court for a
    Waiver of the Payment of Court Costs per State v. Joseph, 
    125 Ohio St.3d 76
    , 
    926 N.E.2d 278
    .” Pettway argued that the trial court imposed court costs in the journal entry, but
    failed to impose the costs at the sentencing hearing. The trial court denied the motion on
    July 30, 2012.
    Res Judicata
    {¶4} In his sole assigned error, Pettway argues the trial court erred by denying
    his motion requesting that the trial court remand the matter for resentencing so that he
    could request the court to waive court costs. In support of his argument, he relies on the
    Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Joseph, 
    125 Ohio St.3d 76
    , 
    2010-Ohio-954
    ,
    
    926 N.E.2d 278
    .
    {¶5} In Joseph, the Supreme Court held that it was reversible error under
    Crim.R. 43(A) for the trial court to impose costs in its sentencing entry when it did not
    impose those costs at the sentencing hearing. Id. at ¶ 22. Joseph, however, was decided
    in the context of a direct appeal from the sentencing judgment imposing court costs. As
    we have previously held, Joseph does not support the argument that a trial court’s failure
    to orally notify a defendant in open court before imposing court costs can be corrected
    after the appeal period expires. State v. Appleton, 8th Dist. No. 97942, 
    2012-Ohio-2778
    ;
    State v. Walker, 8th Dist. No. 96305, 
    2011-Ohio-5270
    .           The appropriate forum for
    challenging court costs is by way of direct appeal from the sentencing entry; a defendant
    is barred under the doctrine of res judicata from raising the issue in a subsequent motion
    or proceeding. 
    Id.
    {¶6} In this case, Pettway could have raised the issue of court costs in his 2008
    direct appeal to this court. He has not shown that he was precluded from raising the
    issue at that time based on information contained in the original record. Having failed to
    do so, Pettway is now barred from raising the issue in a motion after his direct appeal.
    Accordingly, Pettway’s sole assigned error is overruled.
    {¶7} Judgment affirmed.
    It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant its costs herein taxed.
    It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this judgment into
    execution.
    A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of
    the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
    PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, JUDGE
    MELODY J. STEWART, A.J., and
    MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J., CONCUR