State v. Price, 2016 Ohio 7633

Oscar Price was indicted for multiple drug offenses (trafficking heroin, cocaine, marijuana; possession counts later dismissed) and pleaded via an Alford plea to trafficking charges in January 2015.
Initial sentencing (Feb 11, 2015) imposed consecutive prison terms (17 months + 11 months + 11 months) and ordered payment of confinement and appointed-counsel costs.
Price appealed only the consecutive sentences; this court vacated and remanded for resentencing because the trial court had not made required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings.
At resentencing (Jan 15, 2016; journaled Jan 20, 2016) the trial court made findings that consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public and to punish, and reiterated findings about community-control violation, criminal history, and harm.
Price’s second direct appeal challenges (1) whether the record supports the consecutive-sentence findings and (2) whether the court erred by imposing costs for confinement and appointed counsel without adequately considering his ability to pay.

Issue	Price's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether consecutive sentences were supported by the record under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)	Trial court’s findings that consecutive sentences were necessary were unsupported by the record	Trial court made the requisite statutory findings and engaged in appropriate analysis	Affirmed — record supports the required findings (necessity, proportionality, and statutory factor), given community-control violation, criminal history, and other facts
Whether court erred by imposing costs of confinement without considering ability to pay	Court failed to consider present/future ability to pay so confinement cost is void	Record shows the court found Price had or reasonably may be expected to have means to pay; therefore imposition was proper	Affirmed — record contains statements that the court considered ability to pay for confinement, so challenge fails (and is largely barred by res judicata)
Whether court erred by ordering payment for appointed counsel without ability-to-pay inquiry	Court did not make the required determination of means to pay assigned counsel	State argues the issue is precluded because Price did not raise it on prior appeal	Affirmed — claim barred by res judicata; assigned-counsel cost challenge denied

Moore v. State, 985 N.E.2d 432 (Ohio 2012) (failure to include statutorily mandated sentencing term can render that aspect of sentence void)
Fischer v. State, 942 N.E.2d 332 (Ohio 2010) (sentences lacking statutorily required consideration create void aspects subject to later challenge)
Colegrove v. Burns, 195 N.E.2d 811 (Ohio 1964) (longstanding principle that sentences omitting mandatory statutory terms are contrary to law)