State v. Diaz

[Cite as State v. Diaz, 2026-Ohio-1508.]


                    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                     ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                             LAKE COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,                                         CASE NO. 2025-L-110

                 Plaintiff-Appellee,
                                                       Criminal Appeal from the
        - vs -                                         Court of Common Pleas

JULIO C. DIAZ,
                                                       Trial Court No. 2024 CR 000356
                 Defendant-Appellant.


                            OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY

                                           Decided: April 27, 2026
                                            Judgment: Affirmed


Charles E. Coulson, Lake County Prosecutor, and Kristi L. Winner, Assistant Prosecutor,
Lake County Administration Building, 105 Main Street, P.O. Box 490, Painesville, OH
44077 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).

Julio C. Diaz, pro se, PID# A813-833, Lake Erie Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 8000,
Conneaut, OH 44030 (Defendant-Appellant).


MATT LYNCH, P.J.

        {¶1}     Appellant, Julio C. Diaz, pro se, appeals the judgment of the Lake County

Court of Common Pleas, denying his “Motion for a Hearing to Determine Whether to Order

Defendant to Perform Community Service (R.C. 2973.23(B))” for failure to pay his court

costs obligation. For the following reasons, we affirm.

        {¶2}     In August 2024, Diaz was convicted by a jury of Complicity to Theft, a first-

degree misdemeanor, in violation of R.C. 2923.03(A)(1) and 2913.02(A)(1); Complicity to

Burglary, a second-degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2923.03(A)(1) and 2911.12(A)(2);

and Complicity to Breaking and Entering, a fifth-degree felony, in violation of R.C.
2923.03(A)(1) and 2911.13(B). At the sentencing hearing, the trial court merged each

count for purposes of sentencing, and the State elected to proceed on the count of

Complicity to Burglary. The trial court sentenced Diaz to an indefinite prison term of a

minimum of five years up to a maximum of seven and one-half years. This court affirmed

Diaz’s convictions on direct appeal in State v. Diaz, 2025-Ohio-2924 (11th Dist.).

       {¶3}   While his first appeal was pending, on August 12, 2025, Diaz filed in the trial

court a “Motion for a Hearing to Determine Whether to Order Defendant to Perform

Community Service (R.C. 2947.23(B)).” Diaz contended that he has not paid any of his

$2,260 court costs obligation, and as such, the court “must hold a hearing to determine

whether to order community service for that failure and should allow him to perform

community service in lieu of paying such obligation.” Diaz attached to his motion a copy

of an April 8, 2025 letter from the Lake County Clerk of Courts to the Warden of the Lake

Erie Correctional Institution, informing the warden of Diaz’s outstanding balance of $2,260

and requesting the warden to apply any funds from Diaz’s prison account or any future

funds Diaz may receive toward the payment of his court costs obligation. The letter

directed the warden to send any such payment in the form of a check to the clerk of courts.

       {¶4}   The following day, the trial court summarily denied Diaz’s motion without a

hearing, finding it “not well taken.”

       {¶5}   Diaz timely appealed and raises one assignment of error for our review:

       {¶6}   “The trial court’s denial of Defendant­Appellant’s motion for a hearing to

determine whether to order him to perform community service was contrary to law.”

       {¶7}   In his sole assignment of error, Diaz contends the trial court’s sua sponte

denial of his motion is contrary to R.C. 2947.23(B). Specifically, Diaz argues the trial

court’s failure to hold a hearing is contrary to law because he informed the trial court in
                                        PAGE 2 OF 6

Case No. 2025-L-110
his motion that he has not paid any of his court costs, thereby giving the court a belief he

failed to pay.

       {¶8}      “‘R.C. 2947.23 requires a trial court to assess costs against all criminal

defendants, even if the defendant is indigent.’” State v. Burmeister, 2019-Ohio-4927,

¶ 11 (11th Dist.), quoting State v. Clinton, 2017-Ohio-9423, ¶ 239. “If a defendant moves

to waive, suspend, or modify costs, the trial court, in its discretion, may waive, suspend,

or modify payment of those costs.” Id. “The court retains jurisdiction to waive, suspend,

or modify the payment of the costs of prosecution . . . at the time of sentencing or at any

time thereafter.” R.C. 2947.23(C).

       {¶9}      We review a trial court’s denial of a criminal defendant’s postjudgment

motion to waive, suspend, or modify payment of court costs for an abuse of discretion.

Burmeister at ¶ 12. An abuse of discretion is the trial court’s “‘failure to exercise sound,

reasonable, and legal decision-making.’” State v. Beechler, 2010-Ohio-1900, ¶ 62 (2d

Dist.), quoting Black’s Law Dictionary (8th Ed. 2004). To the extent Diaz’s argument

requires statutory interpretation, which is a question of law, our review is de novo. State

v. Cobb, 2026-Ohio-153, ¶ 11 (5th Dist.). See also State v. Freeman, 2022-Ohio-674, ¶

4 (4th Dist.) (discussing standards of review).

       {¶10} Diaz contends the trial court should have held a hearing on his motion

pursuant to R.C. 2947.23(B), which provides:

       If a judge or magistrate has reason to believe that a defendant has failed to
       pay the judgment described in division (A) of this section or has failed to
       timely make payments towards that judgment under a payment schedule
       approved by the judge or magistrate, the judge or magistrate shall hold a
       hearing to determine whether to order the offender to perform community
       service for that failure. The judge or magistrate shall notify both the
       defendant and the prosecuting attorney of the place, time, and date of the
       hearing and shall give each an opportunity to present evidence. If, after the
       hearing, the judge or magistrate determines that the defendant has failed to
                                         PAGE 3 OF 6

Case No. 2025-L-110
       pay the judgment or to timely make payments under the payment schedule
       and that imposition of community service for the failure is appropriate, the
       judge or magistrate may order the offender to perform community service
       until the judgment is paid or until the judge or magistrate is satisfied that the
       offender is in compliance with the approved payment schedule. If the judge
       or magistrate orders the defendant to perform community service under this
       division, the defendant shall receive credit upon the judgment at the
       specified hourly credit rate per hour of community service performed, and
       each hour of community service performed shall reduce the judgment by
       that amount. Except for the credit and reduction provided in this division,
       ordering an offender to perform community service under this division does
       not lessen the amount of the judgment and does not preclude the state from
       taking any other action to execute the judgment.

       {¶11} In Cobb, the appellant also requested a hearing under R.C. 2947.23(B) for

an order of community service to be performed in prison and to convert those hours into

monetary value to pay his costs and fees. Id. at ¶ 13. The Sixth District explained that

“[u]nder this section, a trial court shall hold a hearing only if it has reason to believe that

1) a defendant has failed to pay the judgment or 2) has failed to timely make payments

towards that judgment under a payment schedule approved by the judge.” (Emphasis

sic.) Id. at ¶ 14. The court determined the appellant failed to show either prong to warrant

a hearing since he was incarcerated and his commissary account was garnished to pay

costs. Id. at ¶ 15. Further, as there was no evidence of a payment schedule in effect,

the appellant could not show he failed to timely make payments under an approved

payment schedule. Id. The court concluded the trial court did not err in denying the

appellant’s motion because there was no basis for the court to hold a hearing to determine

whether to order the appellant to perform community service while in prison to pay his

costs and fees as permitted under R.C. 2947.23(B). Id.

       {¶12} Similarly, in Freeman, 2022-Ohio-674 (4th Dist.), the appellant filed a

motion with the trial court to allow him to perform community service in lieu of paying court

costs. Id. at ¶ 2. The court reviewed the motion and found that nothing in the record
                                         PAGE 4 OF 6

Case No. 2025-L-110
demonstrated the appellant had failed to make payments toward the judgment. Id. at ¶

7. “Instead, [the appellant] would prefer to substitute community service as a credit

towards the remaining balance on the judgment rather than continue to pay through

deductions from his prison account.” Id. The court concluded that because there was no

evidence the appellant had failed to make payments in accordance with the trial court’s

order, the trial court was not required to hold a hearing under R.C. 2947.23(B). Id.

       {¶13} Diaz argues his motion and the attached letter from the clerk of courts to

the warden should have been enough to give the trial court a belief he will not pay his

court costs, and therefore, the trial court was required to hold a hearing and should

impose community service. Contrary to Diaz’s assertion, the letter simply evidences that

the warden will apply funds from Diaz’s prison account and any future funds Diaz receives

to his court costs obligation. Diaz failed to submit any evidence demonstrating (1) he did

not pay the judgment or (2) failed to make a payment under a court approved payment

schedule. Thus, under these circumstances, the trial court was not required to hold a

hearing, and any other determination would be premature.

       {¶14} In short, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion by denying Diaz’s

motion without a hearing. Moreover, nothing prevents Diaz from filing in the trial court an

appropriate motion for the appropriate relief in the future.

       {¶15} Diaz’s sole assignment of error is without merit.

       {¶16} The judgment of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.



JOHN J. EKLUND, J.,

ROBERT J. PATTON, J.,

concur.
                                        PAGE 5 OF 6

Case No. 2025-L-110
                                JUDGMENT ENTRY



       For the reasons stated in the opinion of this court, appellant’s assignment of error

is without merit. It is the judgment and order of this court that the judgment of the Lake

County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

       Costs to be taxed against appellant.




                                              PRESIDING JUDGE MATT LYNCH



                                                 JUDGE JOHN J. EKLUND,
                                                        concurs



                                               JUDGE ROBERT J. PATTON,
                                                       concurs


           THIS DOCUMENT CONSTITUTES A FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY

    A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate
              pursuant to Rule 27 of the Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure.




                                       PAGE 6 OF 6

Case No. 2025-L-110