State v. Grond

[Cite as State v. Grond, 2026-Ohio-1337.]




                      IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                          THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                               HENRY COUNTY




STATE OF OHIO,
                                                    CASE NO. 7-25-11
         PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

    v.
                                                    OPINION AND
ASHLEY GROND,                                       JUDGMENT ENTRY
         DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.




                  Appeal from Henry County Common Pleas Court
                            Trial Court No. 25 CR 0034

                                      Judgment Affirmed

                              Date of Decision: April 13, 2026




APPEARANCES:

         Laurel A. Kendall for Appellant

         Gwen Howe-Gebers for Appellee
Case No. 7-25-11



WALDICK, J.

        {¶1} Defendant-appellant, Ashley N. Grond (“Grond”), brings this appeal

from the November 6, 2025, judgment of the Henry County Common Pleas Court.

On appeal, Grond argues that the trial court erred by ordering Grond to pay court

costs without making any findings related to her ability to pay those costs. For the

reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

                                           Background

        {¶2} On March 26, 2025, Grond was indicted for Aggravated Possession of

Drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A)/(C)(1)(d), a first degree felony (Count 1),

and Aggravated Trafficking in Drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2)/(C)(1)(e),

a first degree felony (Count 2).1 Grond originally pled not guilty to the charges.

        {¶3} On September 18, 2025, Grond entered into a negotiated plea

agreement wherein she agreed to plead guilty to an amended Count 2, Aggravated

Trafficking in Drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2)/(C)(1)(d), a second degree

felony. Pursuant to the agreement, Count 1 would be dismissed. In addition, Grond

also agreed to testify against a co-defendant.




1
  The specific drug allegedly involved was methamphetamines in an amount that equaled or exceeded fifty
times the bulk amount but less than one hundred times the bulk amount.

                                                 -2-
Case No. 7-25-11


       {¶4} A change-of-plea hearing was held wherein the trial court determined

that Grond was entering a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary plea. The trial court

found Grond guilty of the amended charge and ordered a pre-sentence investigation.

       {¶5} Prior to sentencing, Grond filed a motion to waive the mandatory fine

associated with her conviction, asserting that she had no money and no income.

       {¶6} On November 5, 2025, Grond’s sentencing hearing was held. After

hearing the arguments of the parties related to sentencing, the trial court sentenced

Grond to serve a mandatory, indefinite prison term of 6 to 9 years. The trial court

waived the mandatory fine in light of Grond’s indigence. Nevertheless, the trial

court stated, “you do need to pay the court costs of this action, court costs will be

stayed for collection until sixty days after you are released from incarceration.”

(Nov. 5, 2025, Tr. at 9).

       {¶7} On November 6, 2025, the trial court issued its final judgment entry

memorializing Grond’s sentence. The trial court reiterated that it was granting

Grond’s motion to waive the mandatory fine in this case, and stated as follows with

regard to court costs:

       Costs of proceedings are assessed against the defendant for which
       execution is hereby awarded. The Court advised the defendant that if
       she failed to pay costs as ordered, she may be required to perform
       community service pursuant to the provisions of Ohio Revised Code
       Section 2947.23. The collection of court costs shall be stayed until 60
       days after the defendant is released from incarceration.

(Doc. No. 46).


                                         -3-
Case No. 7-25-11


       {¶8} Grond now brings the instant appeal from the trial court’s judgment,

asserting the following assignment of error for our review.

                               Assignment of Error

       The trial court erred to the detriment of Appellant when she was
       ordered to pay “court costs” without specifying exactly which
       costs were being imposed, once released from confinement, and
       arguably without any findings on which to base the ability to pay.

       {¶9} In her assignment of error, Grond argues that the trial court erred by

ordering her to pay court costs in this matter without making findings regarding her

ability to pay and without further defining the “court costs.”

                                      Analysis

       {¶10} “By statute, the imposition of court costs on all convicted defendants

is mandatory.” State v. Taylor, 2020-Ohio-3514, ¶ 6. Revised Code

2947.23(A)(1)(a) reads: “In all criminal cases . . . the judge or magistrate shall

include in the sentence the costs of prosecution . . . and render a judgment against

the defendant for such costs.” (Emphasis added.) The Supreme Court of Ohio has

held that the “strict statutory language [of R.C. 2947.23(A)(1)(a)] ‘requires a court

to impose costs against all convicted defendants,’ indigent or not.” (Emphasis sic.)

Taylor quoting State v. White, 2004-Ohio-5989, ¶ 8.

       {¶11} Notably, R.C. 2947.23(C) gives a trial court continuing jurisdiction to

“waive, suspend, or modify the payment of the costs of prosecution . . . at the time


                                         -4-
Case No. 7-25-11


of sentencing or at any time thereafter.” Thus while a trial court must impose court

costs, it may also waive or suspend them. The Supreme Court of Ohio has noted

that R.C. 2947.23 provides no specific criteria for a court to consider when

determining whether to waive, suspend, or modify court costs. Taylor at ¶ 8.

         {¶12} In State v. Taylor, supra, the Supreme Court of Ohio considered the

specific question of whether a trial court must consider “the defendant’s present or

future ability to pay the costs” before imposing court costs pursuant to statute. 2020-

Ohio-3514, ¶ 1. After analyzing the issue, the Court held, “a trial court is not

required to consider the defendant’s ability to pay in assessing a motion to waive,

suspend, or modify court costs under R.C. 2947.23(C), though it is permitted to do

so.” Id. at ¶ 16.

         {¶13} Based on the preceding legal authority, we reject Grond’s claim that

the trial court had to make some findings related to her “ability to pay” court costs.

Regardless, there is some implicit consideration of the issue given that the trial court

waived the mandatory fine but not court costs.2

         {¶14} We are similarly unpersuaded by Grond’s claim that the trial court did

not explain which “court costs” it was imposing upon her. Again, the trial court is

required by statute to impose court costs and enter a judgment for court costs. Ohio


2
  Even if the trial court needed to consider Grond’s ability to pay, the record indicated she was a high school
graduate and had either completed an associates degree in culinary arts or was close to completing it. There
was no indication in the record that Grond was unable to work, or, in the alternative, perform community
service to satisfy the court costs. Grond’s PSI established that she had employment in the past but her drug
issues and convictions often caused problems. Grond was born in 1986, thus she would be under 50 years
old at the time of her release from prison.

                                                     -5-
Case No. 7-25-11


Appellate Courts have held that “a trial court does not err when it fails to specify

the amount of court costs at sentencing; the calculation of court costs is a ministerial

act.” State v. Towe, 2023-Ohio-549, ¶ 14 (2d Dist.). If Grond feels there is a

miscalculation of her court costs, the trial court retains continuing jurisdiction to

address that issue. In the record before us, she has not demonstrated any error.

       {¶15} Simply put, the trial court complied with its statutorily-mandated duty

to impose court costs in this matter. Grond has not demonstrated that the trial court

committed any error by imposing the mandated court costs, thus her assignment of

error is overruled.

                                     Conclusion

       {¶16} Having found no error prejudicial to Grond in the particulars assigned

and argued, her assignment of error is overruled and the judgment of the Henry

County Common Pleas Court is affirmed.

                                                                  Judgment Affirmed

ZIMMERMAN, P.J. and WILLAMOWSKI, J., concur.




                                          -6-
Case No. 7-25-11




                            JUDGMENT ENTRY

       For the reasons stated in the opinion of this Court, the assignment of error is

overruled and it is the judgment and order of this Court that the judgment of the trial

court is affirmed with costs assessed to Appellant for which judgment is hereby

rendered. The cause is hereby remanded to the trial court for execution of the

judgment for costs.

       It is further ordered that the Clerk of this Court certify a copy of this Court’s

judgment entry and opinion to the trial court as the mandate prescribed by App.R.

27; and serve a copy of this Court’s judgment entry and opinion on each party to the

proceedings and note the date of service in the docket. See App.R. 30.




                                            Juergen A. Waldick, Judge



                                            William R. Zimmerman, Judge



                                            John R. Willamowski, Judge

DATED:
/jlm




                                          -7-