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. Rhodman

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District, Licking

December 9, 2019

STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
CARRIE L. RHODMAN, Defendant-Appellant

          Appeal from the Licking County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2018 CR 00245

          For Plaintiff-Appellee WILLIAM C. HAYES Prosecuting Attorney By: CLIFFORD J. MURPHY Assistant Prosecuting Attorney.

          For Defendant-Appellant PATRICK T. CLARK Assistant State Public Defender.

          Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. Hon. Earle E. Wise, J.

          OPINION

          BALDWIN, J.

         {¶1} Carrie L. Rhodman appeals the decision of the Licking County Court of Common Pleas ordering that she pay court-appointed counsel fees. Appellee is the State of Ohio.

         STATEMENT OF FACTS AND THE CASE

         {¶2} The underlying facts leading to the charges in this matter are not relevant to the disposition of the appeal and are therefore omitted.

         {¶3} Appellant was convicted of one count of aggravated arson and was sentenced to a four year prison term and ordered to "*** pay court-appointed counsel costs and any fees permitted pursuant to R.C. Section 2929.18(A)(4) according to the Defendant's ability to pay," over Appellant's objection.

         {¶4} Appellant filed an appeal and submitted two assignments of error:

         {¶5} "I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN SENTENCING CARRIE RHODMAN WHEN IT IMPOSED COSTS OF COUNSEL WITHOUT FIRST FINDING THAT SHE HAD THE ABILITY TO PAY THOSE COSTS."

         {¶6} "II. THE TRIAL COURT'S IMPOSITION OF COUNSEL COSTS AGAINST CARRIE RHODMAN IS CLEARLY AND CONVINCINGLY UNSUPPORTED BY THE RECORD"

         STANDARD OF REVIEW

         {¶7} An appellate court may only modify or vacate a sentence if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the sentencing court's decision. State v. Marcum,146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, 59 N.E.3d 1231at ¶23. Clear and convincing evidence is that "'which will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established.'" State v. Silknitter, 3rd Dist. Union No. 14-16-07, 2017-Ohio-327, ¶ 7 quoting, Marcum, supra, quoting Cross v. Ledford,161 Ohio St. 469, 120 N.E.2d 118 (1954), paragraph three of the syllabus. Clear and convincing evidence is that measure or degree of proof which is more than ...


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.