Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Ragland

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second District, Champaign

May 12, 2017

STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
RONALD E. RAGLAND, II Defendant-Appellant

         Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas Court No. 14-CR-287

          JANE A. NAPIER, Atty. Reg. No. 0061426, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee

          KATE L. BOWLING, Atty. Reg. No. 0084442, Attorney for Defendant-Appellant

          OPINION

          DONOVAN, J.

         {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant Ronald E. Ragland, II, appeals his conviction and sentence for one count of domestic violence, in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A), a felony of the third degree, and one count of disrupting public services, in violation of R.C. 2909.04(A), a felony of the fourth degree.

         {¶ 2} Ragland was originally charged by indictment on December 11, 2014, with one count of domestic violence ("Count One"), and one count of disrupting public services. On July 7, 2015, Ragland appeared for arraignment via teleconference, represented by counsel. Counsel indicated to the court that he and Ragland had discussed the indictment, and Ragland, through counsel, accepted service of the indictment, waived its reading, and entered a plea of not guilty. At a scheduling conference on July 17, 2015, the matter was scheduled for trial to be held on September 22 and 23, 2015, with a final pretrial conference scheduled for August 31, 2015.

         {¶ 3} On September 8, 2015, Ragland pled guilty to both counts in the indictment. On October 5, 2015, Ragland was sentenced to a 30-month prison term for Count One, and a 14-month prison term for Count Two, to be served concurrently to one another but consecutively to his current term of incarceration. The trial court imposed a total fine of $250.00, and it ordered Ragland to pay back the cost of attorney fees and expenses, including court costs. In so doing, the trial court imposed a post-confinement payment plan for the repayment of court appointed counsel fees and court costs.

         {¶ 4} Ragland appealed. Appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), indicating that he found no potential assignment of error having arguable merit. This Court rejected the Anders brief, finding that the issue of whether the trial court erred in imposing a post-confinement payment plan for the repayment of court appointed counsel fees and court costs had arguable merit. New counsel was appointed to brief the issue, including any additional assignments of error recognized.

         {¶ 5} Ragland's appeal is now properly before us.

         {¶ 6} Ragland's sole assignment of error is as follows:

          {¶ 7} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ORDERING A POST CONFINEMENT PAYMENT PLAN FOR APPOINTED COUNSEL FEES."

         {¶ 8} In his sole assignment, Ragland argues that the trial court erred when it ordered him to pay his court-appointed counsel fees through a post-prison repayment schedule set at $50.00 per month. Based upon our recent holding in State v. Springs, 2015-Ohio-5016, 53 N.E.3d 804 (2d Dist.), Ragland argues that such fees must be pursued by a county against a defendant in a separate civil action. Therefore, Ragland asks us to vacate the portion of the judgment entry ordering him to pay his court-appointed counsel legal fees. We note that the State concedes error in the instant case based on our holding in Springs. Id.

         {¶ 9} Ragland's judgment entry of conviction ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.