State v. Seals, 2018 Ohio 2028

Sequoia Seals pleaded guilty in 2013 to third-degree burglary and was placed on three years of community control with conditions including drug treatment and random testing; he was warned that violating community control could result in a 36-month prison term.
Seals had multiple community-control violations (2014, 2015, 2016), was placed in drug court, and was unsuccessfully terminated from drug court in June 2017.
On June 15, 2017, the trial court revoked community control and imposed the original 36-month prison sentence; judgment was journalized June 19, 2017.
Appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief identifying two potential issues: (1) whether the sentence complied with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12; and (2) whether the court erred by imposing costs without considering ability to pay.
The trial court stated at sentencing that it considered the record, PSI, victim statement, and the purposes and principles of sentencing; the written entry referenced R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 and imposed postrelease control.
The appellate court affirmed the conviction and 36-month sentence but vacated the portions of the judgment requiring Seals to pay the costs of confinement and appointed counsel for lack of evidence the court considered his ability to pay; counsel's motion to withdraw was granted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court failed to comply with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 when imposing the 36-month sentence	State: Court complied with sentencing statutes, considered record/PSI/purposes and principles, and imposed a lawful sentence within range	Seals: Sentence contrary to law for failure to properly consider R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 factors	Court: Affirmed — trial court complied and imposition of 36 months was not contrary to law
Whether the court erred by imposing costs (confinement and appointed counsel) without considering ability to pay	State: Imposition of costs proper; costs of prosecution need not consider ability to pay	Seals: Court erred by imposing confinement and appointed counsel costs without any record evidence of ability to pay	Court: Partially reversed — costs of confinement and appointed counsel vacated for lack of evidence the court considered ability to pay; costs of prosecution remain imposed per statute

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedural requirements when appointed counsel seeks to withdraw on appeal)
State v. Kalish, 896 N.E.2d 124 (Ohio 2008) (framework for reviewing whether a felony sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law)
State v. Joseph, 926 N.E.2d 278 (Ohio 2010) (trial court may waive court costs; procedures for waiver and consideration of ability to pay)