State v. Johnson, 2014 Ohio 3776

Donald Johnson was indicted for aggravated robbery, felonious assault, robbery, and aggravated possession of drugs after robbing a pharmacy; he pled no contest to aggravated robbery, robbery, and aggravated possession with a gun specification.
The trial court sentenced Johnson to an aggregate 13-year prison term and ordered $19,000 in fines, $10,000 of which was a mandatory statutory fine for drug-related felonies.
No affidavit of indigency regarding payment of fines was filed with the court prior to sentencing; an affidavit for appointed counsel was filed only after sentencing.
Johnson argued (1) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file an affidavit of indigency or otherwise contest fines, and (2) the court failed to properly consider his present and future ability to pay under R.C. 2929.19(B)(5).
The trial court had ordered and reviewed a presentence investigation (PSI) that included Johnson’s age, employment history, health, and education; the court expressly stated it considered Johnson’s present and future ability to pay when imposing fines.
The appellate court affirmed, finding no reasonable probability the court would have waived the mandatory fine even if an affidavit had been filed, and that the court complied with R.C. 2929.19(B)(5) by considering the PSI and future ability to pay.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to file an affidavit of indigency before sentencing	State: counsel’s omission did not prejudice defendant because the record doesn't show court would have found him unable to pay	Johnson: counsel ineffective; affidavit would likely have led to waiver of mandatory fine	No ineffective assistance; defendant did not show reasonable probability that affidavit would have produced a different result
Whether the trial court failed to consider present and future ability to pay under R.C. 2929.19(B)(5)	State: court complied by reviewing the PSI and expressly considering ability to pay	Johnson: court erred by imposing mandatory fine without adequate consideration of his ability to pay	Court complied with statute; trial court considered present and future ability to pay and properly imposed fines

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (established two-part ineffective-assistance test)
State v. Gipson, 80 Ohio St.3d 626 (burden on offender to demonstrate indigency and inability to pay mandatory fine)
State v. Powell, 78 Ohio App.3d 784 (distinguishing indigency for appointed counsel from indigency for paying fines)