fines to community service, we next must address the trial court’s conversion of Lamb’s court costs to community service. As noted above, the trial court ordered Lamb incarcerated for ten days in each case for his failure to perform community service to satisfy his fines and his court costs. {¶ 9} In Swift, we recognized that “a court cannot incarcerate a person for nonpayment of court costs.” Swift, supra, at ¶ 21, citing Strattman v. Studt (1969), 20 Ohio St.2d 95, 103, 49 O.O.2d 428, 253 N.E.2d 749. Indeed, “[a] judgment for costs in a criminal traffic case is a civil, not a criminal obligation, and may be collected only by the methods provided for the collection of civil judgments.” Id.; see, also, State v. Self, Montgomery App. No. 20370, 2005-Ohio-1120, 2005 WL 589887, at ¶ 64 (<HOLDING>). {¶ 10} In the present case, of course, the
recognizing that courts may not confine defendants to work off court costs in order to satisfy the governments contractual interest holding that costs are not fixed until judgment is entered and interest can only run on costs when due recognizing that the governments failure to prevail is a factor that may be considered recognizing virginias interest in protecting defendants from claims and in holding down insurance costs recognizing that the contractor may recover costs when loss of productivity results from the governments actions