State v. Stevens, 2023 Ohio 3510

Stevens and his wife overdosed in a hotel; police found 83.6 grams of methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia in the room.
Grand jury indicted Stevens for aggravated trafficking and aggravated possession (both second-degree felonies); Stevens pleaded guilty to an amended aggravated-possession charge as a third-degree felony in exchange for dismissal of trafficking.
The trial court ordered a presentence investigation (PSI). At sentencing the court stated it had considered the PSI, oral statements, R.C. 2929.11, and R.C. 2929.12, then imposed 12 months’ imprisonment and a $5,000 mandatory fine plus court costs.
Stevens appealed, asserting (1) ineffective assistance because trial counsel did not file an affidavit of indigency to seek waiver of the mandatory fine, and (2) the 12‑month prison term was contrary to law because the court allegedly failed to meaningfully consider R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 and should have imposed community control.
The appellate court reviewed Strickland and the statutory standard for sentence review (R.C. 2953.08) and affirmed the trial court judgment.

Issue	Stevens' Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to file an affidavit of indigency to avoid the mandatory fine	Counsel’s failure to file an affidavit prejudiced Stevens because the court would have found him indigent and waived the $5,000 fine	The record (PSI, prior employment, ability to post $50,000 bond, court’s finding of present/future ability to pay) did not show a reasonable probability the court would have found Stevens indigent	No ineffective assistance; no reasonable probability court would have found indigent; insufficient prejudice — claim overruled
Whether the 12‑month sentence was contrary to law for failure to meaningfully consider R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 and thus should be replaced by community control	A meaningful consideration of sentencing statutes would have supported community control rather than prison	Sentence is within statutory range; trial court expressly stated it considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12; appellate court cannot reweigh facts under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) absent a legal error	Sentence not contrary to law; court had authority and stated statutory consideration — claim overruled

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑prong ineffective‑assistance test)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio standard and discussion of ineffective assistance application)
State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (explains R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) appellate review of felony sentences)
State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242 (clarifies limits on appellate reweighing under R.C. 2953.08)
State v. Brown, 99 N.E.3d 1135 (discusses when a sentence is contrary to law for failure to consider R.C. 2929.11/2929.12)