State v. Hale, 2020 Ohio 1399

Tarasha D. Hale pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated trafficking in drugs (third-degree felony) on April 18, 2019.
On June 24, 2019 the trial court imposed an 18-month prison sentence (per a joint recommendation) and ordered a $5,000 fine plus court costs.
Hale had been found indigent earlier and appointed counsel at state expense; counsel did not request waiver of the fine/costs at sentencing.
Counsel moved for waiver of fines and costs after sentencing (July 1, 2019); the trial court considered and denied the motion (July 3, 2019).
Hale appealed, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to request a waiver at the sentencing hearing.
The trial court and this appellate panel reviewed the claim under the Strickland/Bradley ineffective-assistance framework and considered Ohio Supreme Court guidance about showing prejudice for failure-to-move-to-waive claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for not moving to waive fines/costs at sentencing	The State: no prejudice because the court retains jurisdiction to waive costs later and the post-sentencing motion was considered and denied	Hale: counsel's failure to move at sentencing deprived her of effective assistance; she was indigent and likely would have obtained a waiver if timely requested	Court affirmed: no ineffective assistance — no prejudice shown because the post-sentencing waiver motion was filed, considered, and denied, so outcome would not have been different

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes two-prong ineffective-assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio 1989) (adopts Strickland standard in Ohio)
State v. Sallie, 81 Ohio St.3d 673 (Ohio 1998) (counsel's decisions are presumptively within the range of reasonable professional assistance)
State v. Clayton, 62 Ohio St.2d 45 (Ohio 1980) (debateable tactics and strategies are not per se ineffective assistance)