State v. Joseph
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
2947.23 lets a defendant seek a waiver after sentencing, and the Supreme Court of Ohio held in State v. Beasley that Joseph no longer governs that remedy. Earlier appellate decisions also confined Joseph's remedy to a timely appeal. All 35 flagged citations have been read; the confirmed treatments are listed below. Joseph's distinction between court costs and criminal punishment continues to be cited.
35 later cases cite State v. Joseph; 35 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on State v. Joseph?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Superseded by statute
-
The Ohio Supreme Court held that the amended cost statute displaced Joseph's required remand because a defendant can seek a waiver after sentencing.
State v. Beasley · Supreme Court of Ohio · filed
Beasley cites State v. Joseph , 125 Ohio St.3d 76, 2010-Ohio-954, 926 N.E.2d 278, for the proposition that it is error for a trial court to impose court costs in its sentencing entry without first informing the defendant during the sentencing hearing of its intent to do so. However, Joseph is no longer good law for this point. ... However, after Joseph was decided and before Beasley was sentenced, the General Assembly amended R.C. 2947.23 by adding division (C): "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 ." (Emphasis added.) In simple terms, Beasley does not need this court to remand this case in order for him to file a motion to waive costs.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Ninth District held Joseph's remand remedy unnecessary under the amended statute.
State v. Yeager · Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth Appellate District · filed
Accordingly, State v. Joseph is no longer good law, and it is no longer necessary to remand matters so as to afford defendants the opportunity to seek a waiver. Beasley at ¶ 263-265. Because Mr. Yeager may file a motion to waive costs with the sentencing court at any time, “his request for a remand on this basis has no merit.”
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Seventh District held that the amended statute removed the need for Joseph's remand remedy.
State v. Price · Court of Appeals of Ohio, Seventh Appellate District · filed
Of equal import, Joseph is no longer good law. ... As a consequence, remand for resentencing is not necessary, insofar as an Ohio defendant can file a post-judgment motion to waive costs after sentencing.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The First District denied a Joseph-based remand because the amended statute permits a later motion to waive costs.
State v. Fissel · Court of Appeals of Ohio, First Appellate District · filed
Ms. Fissel cites to State v. Joseph, 125 Ohio St.3d 76, 2010-Ohio-954, 926 N.E.2d 278, for the proposition that a trial court must impose court costs at the sentencing hearing in order for an indigent defendant to seek a waiver. ... Ms. Fissel no longer needs this court to remand in order for her to file a motion to waive costs in light of the statutory change.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Seventh District applied the amended statute and declined to give Rose the remand remedy Joseph had required.
State v. Rose · Court of Appeals of Ohio, Seventh Appellate District · filed
The Joseph Court then applied the principle that a motion to waive costs must be made at sentencing or the issue is waived as res judicata. ... Subsequently, the legislature abrogated this holding by amending R.C. 2947.23 to provide: “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) (effective 3/22/13). Consequently, the Supreme Court thereafter refused to apply Joseph to a case where costs were imposed in the sentencing entry without being discussed at sentencing.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Limited
-
The Eighth District declined to extend Joseph's cost-waiver remedy to a motion filed after the direct appeal period expired.
State v. Walker · Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth Appellate District · filed
Significantly, however, Joseph was decided in the context of a direct appeal from a resentencing judgment. ... The appropriate forum for challenging court costs is by way of direct appeal from the sentencing entry and the defendant is barred under the doctrine of res judicata from raising the issue in a subsequent motion or proceeding.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Fifth District held that Joseph's remedy did not reach a cost challenge raised for the first time after direct appeal.
State v. Macksyn · Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth Appellate District · filed
Appellant cites State v. Joseph, 125 Ohio St.3d 76, holding it is reversible error for the trial court to impose costs in its sentencing entry when it did not impose those costs in open court at sentencing. However, Joseph was decided on direct appeal. Appellant did not raise the issue of court costs at trial or on direct appeal. Therefore, his claim is barred by res judicata as the issue was capable of being raised on direct appeal.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads State v. Joseph and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace