State v. Hull, 2017 Ohio 7934

Defendant Darious De’John Hull (juvenile at time of offense) pled guilty to aggravated burglary with a three‑year firearm specification and was sentenced to an aggregate 11‑year prison term.
The trial court ordered restitution of $3,573.08 to Interfaith Hospitality for repair costs.
The court stated it had reviewed Hull’s presentence investigation report (PSI) but did not expressly state on the record that it considered Hull’s present and future ability to pay restitution.
Hull’s PSI showed he was 16, in 11th grade, had no employment history or income, used marijuana daily, had no known mental or physical health issues, and no adult criminal record beyond the instant offense.
Hull did not object at sentencing and appealed, arguing (1) the court failed to consider his present and future ability to pay in violation of R.C. 2929.19(B)(5) (plain‑error review), and (2) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object.
The majority affirmed restitution, finding the record (PSI plus Hull’s sentencing statements, youth, health, lack of obligations, and relatively shorter sentence) permitted an inference the court considered ability to pay; a dissent would have reversed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Hull)	Held
Whether the trial court failed to consider Hull’s present and future ability to pay restitution as required by R.C. 2929.19(B)(5)	The record (PSI review plus sentencing) supports an inference the court considered ability to pay; no plain error.	The court did not expressly consider ability to pay; PSI shows no income or employment and a long sentence making future ability unlikely.	Affirmed: no plain error — sufficient record to infer consideration of ability to pay.
Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to the alleged failure to consider ability to pay	Counsel’s performance was not deficient because the court did not err; no prejudice.	Counsel was ineffective for not preserving the issue at sentencing.	Affirmed: ineffective‑assistance claim fails because there was no underlying error and thus no prejudice.

State v. Payne, 114 Ohio St.3d 502 (2007) (plain‑error standard requires an obvious defect affecting the outcome)
State v. Lang, 129 Ohio St.3d 512 (2011) (plain‑error relief is granted only under exceptional circumstances)
State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (1978) (plain‑error doctrine discussion)
State v. Culver, 160 Ohio App.3d 172 (2005) (trial court need not orally state factors considered for restitution but record must show consideration of ability to pay)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part ineffective assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (1989) (Ohio formulation of Strickland standards)
State v. Parker, 183 Ohio App.3d 431 (2009) (discusses requirement that record affirmatively reflect consideration of ability to pay)