State v. Simpson, 2014 Ohio 4580

Simpson (defendant) was indicted for one count of tampering with records (R.C. 2913.42(A)(1)), a third-degree felony because the falsified document was kept by a government entity.
The charge arose from Simpson submitting a forged “apology” letter purportedly from the Ohio Department of Taxation in support of a motion for a new trial in a civil case (Jones v. Global Millenium, Inc.).
The Department of Taxation had actually issued a certificate of reinstatement for Simpson’s company; the apology letter was unsigned, contained errors, and was inconsistent with department records, prompting prosecutor investigation.
At trial, Simpson admitted creating the letter, stating motives: anger at the state, desire for a new trial, and belief the state had harmed his business.
The jury convicted Simpson; the court sentenced him to five years community control and imposed the maximum $10,000 fine.
On appeal Simpson challenged sufficiency of the evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to file affidavit of indigency/object to fine), and imposition of the maximum fine without adequate consideration of ability to pay.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency: Did evidence support tampering conviction?	State: Simpson admitted forging the letter and filing it in court; intent and knowing conduct established.	Simpson: He lacked criminal intent; he acted to correct clerical errors regarding tax status and corporate legitimacy.	Affirmed: Viewing evidence in prosecution's favor, a rational juror could find elements proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ineffective assistance: Did counsel perform deficiently by not filing affidavit of indigency or objecting to fine?	State: No reasonable probability of different outcome; affidavit not required here and record doesn’t show counsel’s omission prejudiced Simpson.	Simpson: Counsel should have filed affidavit of indigency and objected to maximum fine.	Affirmed: Failure to file affidavit or object did not establish prejudice; statutory filing not mandatory here.
Fine: Was imposition of maximum fine an abuse of discretion without explicit findings on ability to pay?	State: Court reviewed PSI and considered present/future ability to pay; trial court satisfied statutory consideration requirement.	Simpson: Court imposed maximum fine/costs without regard to ability to pay.	Affirmed: Court properly considered PSI and need not make express findings; record supported ability-to-pay consideration.

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (legal sufficiency standard)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
State v. Perez, 124 Ohio St.3d 122 (Strickland/Bradley framework for ineffective assistance)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance two-prong test)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio standard applying Strickland)
State v. Kelly, 145 Ohio App.3d 277 (indigency for appointed counsel does not automatically bar fines)