State v. Farless, 2016 Ohio 1571

Brett Farless pleaded guilty to two counts of burglary in Lucas County; sentenced to 16 years (two consecutive 4-year terms noted in judgment; total 16 years referenced) and ordered to pay restitution ($180, $3,500, $260) and various court costs/financial sanctions.
At sentencing the court found Farless indigent for appointed counsel but also stated he "has, or reasonably could be expected to have, the means to pay all or part" of certain costs under R.C. 9.92(C), 2929.18, 2951.021.
Appellant challenged (1) imposition of court costs/financial sanctions without a meaningful inquiry into present and future ability to pay and (2) ineffective assistance of counsel for not objecting to those costs.
Several costs are mandatory (e.g., citizens reward program, costs of prosecution, mandatory restitution per plea agreement); other costs (confinement, appointed counsel) require consideration of ability to pay.
The sentencing record showed Farless had substance abuse and mental-health history, limited work history, family support pre-arrest, was found indigent, but was a healthy 29-year-old who could possibly earn prison wages in the future.
The court of appeals reviewed for legal error under R.C. 2953.08 and Strickland prejudice for ineffective-assistance claims and affirmed the convictions and imposition of the costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court erred by imposing costs/financial sanctions without meaningful inquiry into ability to pay	Farless: court imposed costs while sentencing him to long prison term without adequate inquiry into present/future ability to pay	State: some costs are mandatory; court considered future ability (prison work) and made explicit finding that Farless could reasonably be expected to pay	No error: mandatory costs valid; court record shows consideration of future ability to pay for confinement and counsel costs despite limited present-ability evidence
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to object to costs	Farless: counsel should have objected to imposition absent adequate inquiry	State: objections would lack merit for mandatory costs and plea-based restitution; no additional evidence counsel could have offered on future ability to pay	No ineffective-assistance: counsel’s failure to object was not shown deficient or prejudicial given statutory mandatory costs and plea stipulations

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes standard for ineffective-assistance claims)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio standard for proving prejudice in ineffective-assistance claims)
State v. Elmore, 111 Ohio St.3d 515 (discusses trial-tactics and ineffective-assistance review)
State v. Collins, 41 N.E.3d 899 (discusses appellate standard under R.C. 2953.08 for reviewing costs)
State v. Joseph, 926 N.E.2d 278 (125 Ohio St.3d 76) (trial court discretion to waive court costs post-sentencing)
State v. Burns, 976 N.E.2d 969 (discusses restitution and plea-agreement effect on financial sanctions)