State v. Sanders, 2017 Ohio 8088

Bill Adam Sanders was convicted in 1995 of three counts of attempted murder with firearm specifications and was sentenced; the convictions and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal.
The sentencing court ordered Sanders to pay the costs of prosecution and entered an execution-for-costs entry in 1995.
Sanders filed multiple post-judgment motions (2012, 2013, 2015) challenging aspects of his sentence and the imposition of costs; prior appeals (Sanders I–IV) rejected those challenges and invoked res judicata where applicable.
In November 2016 Sanders filed a Motion to Waive or Suspend Court Costs; the trial court denied it and Sanders appealed to the Fourth District.
Sanders argued (1) the trial court retained jurisdiction under R.C. 2947.23(C) to waive/suspend costs at any time, (2) the court failed to assess his ability to pay, and (3) trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting.
The Fourth District affirmed, holding Sanders’s claims are barred by res judicata because costs were imposed and appealed earlier, and the statutory provision he relies on (R.C. 2947.23(C)) took effect after his final judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court retained jurisdiction to waive/suspend costs after sentence final	State: trial court lacked jurisdiction to reopen a valid final criminal judgment imposed before HB 247	Sanders: R.C. 2947.23(C) allows waiver/suspension at any time after sentencing	Held: No jurisdiction here; R.C. 2947.23(C) became effective after Sanders’s 1995 sentence so res judicata/constitutional limits bar reopening
Whether court was required to determine past, present, future ability to pay before imposing costs	State: R.C. 2929.19 applies only to fines/financial sanctions, not court costs	Sanders: Court failed to determine his ability to pay as required	Held: R.C. 2929.19 does not apply to court costs; ability-to-pay determination not required for costs
Whether trial court failed to state amount of costs at sentencing	State: costs were announced and entered ($1,664 execution-for-costs entry)	Sanders: trial court did not determine amount at hearing	Held: Amount was reflected in the judgment entries; claim is meritless and previously raised on direct appeal
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to sentencing/costs	State: no statutory obligation existed that counsel could have enforced; issue was raised on direct appeal	Sanders: counsel should have objected to lack of ability-to-pay inquiry and cost calculation	Held: Ineffective-assistance claim is barred by res judicata and fails on the merits under Strickland

State v. Threatt, 108 Ohio St.3d 277 (2006) (abuse-of-discretion standard for denial of indigent defendant’s motion to waive costs)
State v. White, 103 Ohio St.3d 580 (2004) (R.C. 2947.23 requires assessment of costs against convicted defendants)
State v. Clevinger, 114 Ohio St.3d 258 (2007) (defendant’s financial status irrelevant to imposition of court costs)
State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010) (void sentences subject to correction at any time)
State v. Joseph, 125 Ohio St.3d 76 (2010) (court costs are civil assessments; courts have discretion concerning costs)
State ex rel. White v. Junkin, 80 Ohio St.3d 335 (1997) (courts of common pleas lack authority to reconsider valid final criminal judgments)
State v. Raber, 134 Ohio St.3d 350 (2012) (trial courts lack authority to reopen valid final criminal judgments)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-pronged ineffective-assistance-of-counsel standard)
State v. Drummond, 111 Ohio St.3d 14 (2006) (application of Strickland in Ohio criminal cases)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (1989) (Ohio standard for evaluating ineffective-assistance claims)