State v. Ali, 2024 Ohio 486

Shahnaz Ali was convicted in Lucas County, Ohio, of two counts of felonious assault, each a second-degree felony, after pleading no contest.
The trial court sentenced her to concurrent prison terms (minimum 3 years and maximum 4.5 years for each count), along with postrelease control and court costs.
The sentencing entries included orders for Ali to pay costs of supervision, confinement, prosecution, and appointed counsel fees.
Ali appealed, specifically challenging only the imposition of costs of confinement and supervision, arguing the trial court did not consider her ability to pay on the record at sentencing.
The prosecution agreed the sentencing hearing did not specifically address these costs but argued the trial court implicitly considered Ali's ability to pay by referencing the presentence investigation (PSI).
The appellate court reviewed whether imposing these discretionary costs was contrary to law given the hearing record.

Issue	Ali’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Did the trial court lawfully impose costs of confinement and supervision without considering Ali’s ability to pay on the record at sentencing?	Trial court did not address ability to pay for these costs at sentencing, as required	Although not raised at hearing, PSI info sufficed to support ability to pay finding	The court erred: discretionary costs like confinement must be imposed on record at sentencing; those portions of judgment vacated

No cases with official reporter citations were referenced in the opinion for inclusion based on the instructions. The court cited local cases but not from official reporters.