The Ohio Court of Appeals has upheld the sentencing of Kenneth White for drug trafficking offenses, affirming the trial court's decision regarding financial sanctions related to his confinement and assigned counsel. The ruling, issued on September 4, 2026, impacts White and sets a precedent for how courts assess a defendant's ability to pay costs associated with their sentence.
White entered Alford pleas to multiple drug-related charges, including aggravated trafficking in drugs and trafficking in heroin and fentanyl-related compounds. This means he did not admit guilt but acknowledged that prosecutors had enough evidence to convict him. The case was filed under docket number L-26-00020 and was decided by Judge Thomas J. Osowik, with Judges Gene A. Zmuda and Myron C. Duhart concurring.
The dispute arose after White was sentenced to prison for his offenses. The trial court determined that he was not suitable for community control and imposed a minimum of three years for the most serious charge, along with additional terms for the other charges. White was also ordered to pay costs related to his supervision, confinement, and the fees for his assigned counsel. He appealed the trial court's decision, arguing that the court did not adequately demonstrate that he had the ability to pay these costs.
The Ohio Court of Appeals reviewed the case, focusing on whether the trial court's imposition of financial sanctions was lawful. The court noted that under Ohio law, a trial court can require an offender to pay costs if it finds that the offender has the means to do so. The court found that the trial court's decision was supported by the Presentence Investigation Report (PSI), which included details about White's financial situation, health, and employability.
The court ruled, "Given your youth, health and employability... you are found to have or reasonably may be expected to have the means to pay all of or part of those applicable costs."
In its ruling, the court stated that the trial court did not need to conduct a formal hearing to determine White's ability to pay. It emphasized that the trial court's findings were sufficient, as it had considered relevant factors before making its decision. The court also addressed the costs of appointed counsel, clarifying that these fees are not part of the criminal sentence and are assessed separately.
The court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that White could pay the costs of confinement and assigned counsel. The ruling affirmed the trial court's judgment and denied White's assignment of error. As a result, he remains responsible for the financial obligations imposed by the court.
This ruling has implications for future cases involving financial sanctions in criminal sentencing. It clarifies that trial courts have discretion in assessing a defendant's ability to pay costs and do not need to provide extensive justification for their findings. This decision could affect other defendants facing similar financial assessments in Ohio.
Looking ahead, White's case is unlikely to be appealed further, as the Ohio Court of Appeals has affirmed the lower court's ruling. However, similar cases may arise in the future, prompting further examination of how courts handle financial sanctions and a defendant's ability to pay.