State v. Mills, 2015 Ohio 393

Appellant Shad D. Mills was sentenced in 2004 to 15 years and ordered to pay prosecution costs; sentence was later vacated and he was resentenced in 2006 with costs again imposed.
Mills did not request a waiver of court costs at either sentencing and did not raise costs on his prior appeals.
In September 2013 Mills filed a postconviction objection asking the trial court to waive or dismiss court costs as indigent and claiming no hearing occurred about his ability to pay.
The trial court denied the 2013 motion to waive costs; Mills appealed the denial to the Sixth District Court of Appeals.
The appellate court considered Mills’ pro se brief despite procedural defects and addressed the merits.
The court applied Ohio law requiring a motion to waive costs at sentencing and treated Mills’ late request as barred by res judicata; it affirmed the trial court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Mills)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether the trial court erred in denying Mills’ request to waive/dismiss court costs	Mills: Waiver required because no hearing was held and he is indigent with no record of future ability to pay	State: Mills failed to move to waive at sentencing; issue is waived and barred by res judicata	Court affirmed: Costs must be contested at sentencing; absent timely motion the claim is barred by res judicata (no hearing required post-sentencing)

State v. Threatt, 843 N.E.2d 164 (Ohio 2006) (defendant must move at sentencing to preserve challenge to court costs; otherwise issue is waived and res judicata applies)
CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Bumphus, 966 N.E.2d 278 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011) (pro se litigants must follow same procedural rules as attorneys, though courts may give reasonable leeway)