State v. Bricker, 2022 Ohio 3494

Richard Bricker pled guilty to three fifth-degree felony counts for violating protection orders; seven other counts were dismissed under a plea agreement.
Each count carried a specification for prior violations; plea entry filed Oct. 20, 2021.
Sentenced Nov. 23, 2021 to 11 months on each count, concurrent with each other but ordered consecutive to a sentence in a separate Fulton County case; judgment filed Nov. 24, 2021.
At plea and sentencing the court told Bricker he faced a discretionary three-year post-release control (PRC) period, though statutory law provides up to two years for fifth-degree felonies.
The court ordered Bricker to pay court costs but waived costs for his court-appointed counsel.
Bricker appealed raising three assignments: improper PRC advisement, inadequate on-the-record findings for consecutive sentences, and erroneous imposition of court costs given his indigency.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court properly advised Bricker of the length of discretionary post-release control	Any overstatement was harmless; if needed, remand for PRC resentencing only	Misstating PRC (3 yrs vs statutory up to 2 yrs) rendered plea unknowing and involuntary	Court erred in advisement but Bricker showed no prejudice under Crim.R.11 substantial-compliance; plea stands. Vacated PRC imposition and remanded for resentencing on PRC only
Whether the trial court made required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings for consecutive sentences on the record	Oral colloquy and written entry together satisfy requirements	The court failed to make the statutorily required findings during the sentencing hearing	Written entry contained findings but the court did not state all required findings at the hearing; sentence contrary to law — remand for new sentencing hearing on consecutive-sentence findings
Whether imposition of court costs against an indigent defendant was reversible error	Costs of prosecution are mandatory regardless of ability to pay	Indigency (on Social Security) means court should not impose costs	Bricker did not object (plain-error review); imposed costs were the mandatory costs of prosecution (court excluded counsel fees); no plain error — cost order affirmed

State v. Beasley, 108 N.E.3d 1028 (Ohio 2018) (trial court must make statutory consecutive-sentence findings and incorporate them into the record/entry)
State v. Bonnell, 16 N.E.3d 659 (Ohio 2014) (trial court need not recite statutory language verbatim if record supports findings)
Woods v. Telb, 733 N.E.2d 1103 (Ohio 2000) (trial court must inform offender at plea or sentencing that post-release control is part of the sentence)
State v. Clark, 893 N.E.2d 462 (Ohio 2008) (distinguishes literal vs. substantial compliance with Crim.R.11 and prescribes prejudice inquiry for nonconstitutional advisements)
State v. White, 817 N.E.2d 393 (Ohio 2004) (costs of prosecution are mandatory irrespective of ability to pay)
State v. Wogenstahl, 662 N.E.2d 311 (Ohio 1996) (plain-error standard: outcome would clearly have been otherwise)
State v. Carter, 734 N.E.2d 345 (Ohio 2000) (failure to object at trial waives appellate review absent plain error)