State v. Davis (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 309

Benjamin A. Davis was convicted of assaulting a peace officer; at sentencing the trial court imposed prison and assessed court costs despite a prior finding that Davis was indigent.
Defense counsel did not move at sentencing to waive court costs under then-applicable law permitting waiver at sentencing or later.
Davis appealed, arguing counsel was ineffective for failing to request a waiver; the Fifth District rejected the claim, finding no prejudice because R.C. 2947.23(C) allows a post‑sentence motion to waive costs.
The Eighth District (in Springer/Gibson) had taken the opposite view, holding that a prior finding of indigency creates a reasonable probability the court would have waived costs at sentencing.
The Ohio Supreme Court accepted the certified conflict and held that neither bright-line rule is correct; instead the Bradley/Strickland two‑prong ineffective-assistance test applies and prejudice must be assessed case‑by‑case (whether there is a reasonable probability the court would have granted a waiver at sentencing).
The Court reversed the Fifth District and remanded for application of the Bradley/Strickland standard to the record, declining to adopt a per se rule for or against prejudice and declining to decide, on this record, whether a Sixth Amendment right to counsel covers motions to waive court costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel’s failure to move to waive court costs at sentencing is ineffective assistance when defendant was previously found indigent	Davis: counsel was deficient and prior indigency made it reasonably probable the court would have waived costs if asked	State/Fifth Dist.: no prejudice because defendant can move later under R.C. 2947.23(C)	Neither per se yes nor no; apply Bradley/Strickland; remand to assess whether facts show a reasonable probability the court would have granted a waiver at sentencing
Whether courts may treat prior indigency as dispositive proof of prejudice	Davis/Eighth Dist.: prior indigency demonstrates reasonable probability of waiver	State/Fifth Dist.: prior indigency insufficient; ability to seek waiver later defeats prejudice claim	Rejected both bright-line rules; indigency alone does not automatically establish prejudice; all relevant facts must be considered
Whether an ineffective-assistance claim based on failure to seek waiver is cognizable	Davis: claim is part of sentencing (a critical stage) and may be raised	State/Dissent: no Sixth Amendment right to counsel to seek civil collection relief like court costs	Court permits the claim here but does not definitively resolve the broader constitutional-right question; proceeds under Bradley/Strickland

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑prong ineffective‑assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio adoption of Strickland ineffective‑assistance standard)
State v. White, 103 Ohio St.3d 580 (court must impose costs but may waive for indigent defendants)
State v. Clevenger, 114 Ohio St.3d 258 (discussion of court costs and related procedures)
State v. Gondor, 112 Ohio St.3d 377 (defendant bears burden to prove ineffective assistance)
State v. Dean, 146 Ohio St.3d 106 (indigency determination does not automatically require waiver of costs)
State v. Beasley, 153 Ohio St.3d 497 (R.C. 2947.23(C) permits post‑sentence motions to waive costs)
State v. Threatt, 108 Ohio St.3d 277 (court costs are not punishment)