State v. Lykins, 102 N.E.3d 503

Appellant Stephen D. Lykins pleaded guilty to one count of pandering obscenity involving a minor (R.C. 2907.321(A)(2)) from an original three-count indictment, and was sentenced to six years' imprisonment and classified a Tier II sex offender. Two counts were dismissed post-plea.
The trial court ordered a $1,000 fine (to be taken from appellant's bank account), assessment of all prosecution costs, and authorized execution for fines and costs; the court stated it considered appellant's present and future ability to pay.
Appellant did not object at sentencing to the fine, the court's consideration of his Social Security disability benefits, or the assessment of costs; he raised these issues on appeal (arguing plain error where relevant).
The cost bill assessed prosecution costs for all three municipal-court-originated cases, including the two dismissed counts; the clerk issued a writ of execution that returned $.01 after levy.
The Fourth District affirmed the conviction and fine (no plain error), reversed the court's imposition of costs for the dismissed counts, and rejected the challenge to the clerk's execution as void.

Issue	Lykins' Argument	State's/Trial Court's Argument	Held
Whether $1,000 fine was improperly imposed	Fine invalid because court relied on bank balance and impermissibly considered Social Security disability benefits; SS benefits are sacrosanct	Court considered presentence report, earning potential, bank funds and expressly considered ability to pay	Affirmed — no plain error; record shows court considered present and future ability to pay
Whether costs for dismissed counts may be assessed	Court improperly assessed prosecution costs for two counts that were dismissed	Costs are part of sentence and may be assessed only as to convictions/sentenced counts	Reversed as to those costs; remand to determine costs attributable to the single convicted count
Whether particular assessed costs were unauthorized	(Alternative) Specific line items are unauthorized	Trial court must evaluate and itemize costs; appellant may challenge via appeal or post‑sentence procedure	Moot as framed alternatively; court remanded to reexamine and amend itemized cost bill
Whether clerk's writ of execution against appellant's property was void	Execution void because appellant was indigent and entitled to itemized bill and opportunity to pay before levy	Clerk may attempt collection from indigent defendants; R.C. 2949.15 does not require pre-levy hearing; return was $.01 and no prejudice shown	Affirmed — execution not void; collection procedures permissible and any miscalculation harmless given $.01 return

Barnes v. State, 94 Ohio St.3d 21 (Ohio 2002) (plain-error standard discussion)
Marcum v. State, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (Ohio 2016) (standard for appellate review of felony sentences)
Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (U.S. 1997) (plain-error must be obvious under current law)
Henderson v. United States, 568 U.S. 266 (U.S. 2013) (clarifying plain-error review)
Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (Ohio 1954) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
Long v. State, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (Ohio 1978) (admonition to notice plain error sparingly)
White v. State, 103 Ohio St.3d 580 (Ohio 2004) (clerk may attempt collection of assessed court costs from indigent defendant)
Threatt v. State, 108 Ohio St.3d 277 (Ohio 2006) (permitting civil-judgment collection methods and R.C. 5120.133 procedures for collecting assessed costs)
Lingo v. State, 138 Ohio St.3d 427 (Ohio 2014) (costs are part of final, appealable judgment entry of sentence)
Nelson v. Colorado, 137 S. Ct. 1249 (U.S. 2017) (state may not retain funds taken solely because of invalidated convictions)