State v. Rice, 2022 Ohio 1068

Defendant Alan Rice pleaded guilty to amended Count 2 (robbery, second-degree felony with firearm specifications), Count 3 (weapons while under disability), Count 5 (tampering with evidence), and Count 7 (drug possession); other counts were nolled.
The trial court accepted the plea, ordered a presentence investigation (PSI), and sentenced Rice to an aggregate 11-year prison term (including the maximum eight years on the robbery count).
The court also ordered forfeiture of the weapon, imposed $250 fines on each count (total $1,000), and assessed court costs.
On appeal Rice argued (1) the trial court misapplied R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 and improperly imposed the maximum robbery sentence by failing to weigh mitigating factors (mental-health and substance-abuse issues), and (2) the court imposed fines and costs without adequately considering his present and future ability to pay.
The Eighth District affirmed: it held the sentence was within the statutory range and the record (PSI, hearing, and journal entry stating required factors were considered) sufficed to show compliance with sentencing statutes; it further held the court adequately considered ability to pay and properly imposed mandatory costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by imposing the maximum (8-year) prison term for robbery in violation of R.C. 2929.11/2929.12	State: sentence is within statutory range; court considered required factors (PSI, hearing, journal entry)	Rice: court failed to properly balance seriousness/recidivism factors and did not give mitigating weight to his mental-health and substance-abuse history	Affirmed — court complied with R.C. 2929.11/2929.12; journal entry/PSI/hearing suffice; appellate court will not reweigh factors (Jones)
Whether the trial court erred by imposing fines and costs without considering defendant’s ability to pay	State: PSI and bond information provided the court enough evidence to consider present/future ability to pay; costs of prosecution are mandatory	Rice: indigent, unemployed, low education, incarcerated long-term — cannot pay fines/costs	Affirmed — PSI and record provided sufficient basis to impose fines; prosecution costs are mandatory and may be later waived but Rice made no motion to do so

State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 169 N.E.3d 649 (2020) (limits appellate review under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2); appellate courts may not reweigh compliance with R.C. 2929.11/2929.12)
State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (2016) (framework for reviewing felony sentences)
State v. Arnett, 88 Ohio St.3d 208, 724 N.E.2d 793 (2000) (no statutory requirement for specific on-the-record factual findings under R.C. 2929.11/2929.12)
State v. Wilson, 129 Ohio St.3d 214, 951 N.E.2d 381 (2011) (trial court need not make express findings on record for R.C. 2929.11/2929.12)
State v. Taylor, 161 Ohio St.3d 319, 163 N.E.3d 486 (2020) (imposition of prosecution costs is mandatory under R.C. 2947.23(A)(1)(a))
State v. Jacobs, 189 Ohio App.3d 283, 938 N.E.2d 79 (2010) (some record evidence required that trial court considered defendant’s ability to pay fines)
State v. Nitsche, 66 N.E.3d 135 (2016) (indigency or appointed counsel does not categorically bar imposition of fines)
State v. Brown, 158 N.E.3d 972 (2020) (PSI can supply sufficient factual basis for the court to consider present/future ability to pay fines)