State v. Taylor, 102 N.E.3d 1101

Ronelle Taylor pleaded guilty to multiple drug and related offenses in two cases; the trial judge announced sentence in open court but did not orally impose court costs at sentencing. The journal entries later ordered Taylor to pay court costs.
Taylor filed an App.R. 26(B) application to reopen his direct appeal, arguing appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising (1) failure to file a suppression motion and (2) the court’s imposition of costs outside his presence.
The panel addressed the suppression claim and denied it (Taylor had pleaded guilty before suppression was resolved). The costs claim triggered en banc consideration because of conflicting district decisions whether imposing costs in the journal when not imposed in open court is reversible error or harmless.
The en banc majority concluded that imposing costs in the judgment entry without advising the defendant in open court violates Crim.R. 43(A) and Ohio Supreme Court precedent (State v. Joseph) and is reversible error; it overruled contrary district precedent (Thomas, Nelson).
The merit panel reinstated the appeal, reversed the judgment as to costs only, and remanded so Taylor may move for a waiver of costs and for the trial court to resolve costs.
A dissent (Stewart, J.) argued the 2013 amendment to R.C. 2947.23(C) (allowing post‑sentencing waiver requests) renders the Crim.R. 43(A) error harmless in most cases and that the majority’s ruling effectively makes the error per se reversible.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Taylor)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether imposing court costs in the journal entry when costs were not imposed or announced at the sentencing hearing violates Crim.R. 43(A) and requires reversal	Failure to orally impose costs deprived Taylor of the opportunity to request indigency waiver at sentencing, so imposition in the journal is reversible error	After the 2013 amendment to R.C. 2947.23(C), a defendant can move post‑sentence to waive costs, so any Crim.R. 43(A) omission is harmless	En banc: Reversible error; reverse costs portion and remand to allow motion for waiver (following State v. Joseph principle)
Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a motion to suppress on appeal	Taylor argued appellate counsel should have raised trial counsel’s failure to file/move on suppression	State pointed out suppression motion was filed and Taylor’s guilty plea waived suppression claim	Denied: suppression claim not well-founded (motion filed; guilty plea forfeited suppression claim)

State v. Joseph, 125 Ohio St.3d 76 (2010) (holding it is reversible Crim.R. 43(A) error to impose court costs in a journal entry when not imposed in open court because defendant lost opportunity to seek waiver)
State v. Threatt, 108 Ohio St.3d 277 (2006) (holding a defendant must request waiver of costs at sentencing or the issue is waived/res judicata)
State v. Clevenger, 114 Ohio St.3d 258 (2007) (holding trial courts lacked statutory authority to suspend or waive costs after sentencing before statutory amendment)
State v. Davis, 116 Ohio St.3d 404 (2008) (explaining Crim.R. 43 errors may be subject to harmless‑error analysis)
Montpelier v. Greeno, 25 Ohio St.3d 170 (1986) (guilty plea waives right to assert suppression error)