State v. Taylor
117 N.E.3d 887
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Defendant Robert Taylor pled guilty (by bill of information) to kidnapping (1st‑degree felony) and gross sexual imposition of a child under 13 (3rd‑degree felony) in exchange for dismissal of indicted rape and misdemeanor charges.
- Sentence: five years community control (no‑break), Tier II sex‑offender designation, no contact with victim.
- At sentencing the court ordered payment of $130 court‑appointed counsel fee (separately imposed), a $250 supervision fee, and court costs later calculated at $1,138.
- Taylor appealed, arguing the court erred in ordering the counsel fee without determining ability to pay and that trial counsel was ineffective for not seeking waivers of the counsel fee, supervision fee, and court costs.
- The appellate court reversed only as to the court‑appointed counsel fee (remanding for an amended entry omitting that fee) and affirmed in all other respects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Taylor) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in ordering payment of court‑appointed counsel fees without determining ability to pay on the record | Trial court did not notify Taylor at sentencing of the fee determination or make an express ability‑to‑pay finding | Court implicitly considered the PSI and therefore reasonably determined ability to pay | Reversed as to counsel fees: trial court must make an explicit ability‑to‑pay finding and specify amount before imposing counsel fees; omission requires vacatur of the $130 fee |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to seek waiver of court‑appointed counsel fees | Counsel should have requested waivers; failure deprived Taylor of relief | Counsel’s failure did not prejudice Taylor as to costs and is moot as to counsel fees because those fees were vacated | Court rejected ineffective‑assistance claim: moot for counsel fees; no prejudice shown as to court costs; no reasonable probability waiver of supervision fee would have been granted |
| Whether trial counsel’s failure to seek waiver of court costs prejudiced Taylor | Counsel should have sought waiver | Even if counsel omitted request, Taylor can seek waiver later under statute | Not ineffective: court costs are mandatory at sentencing and may be waived later; no prejudice shown |
| Whether the supervision fee waiver should have been requested | Counsel should have sought waiver given Taylor’s disability income and limited means | Court could reasonably find, based on PSI, Taylor could pay $250 supervision fee | Not ineffective: record supports that court could have found ability to pay; no reasonable probability waiver would have been granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑pronged ineffective assistance test)
- Yarborough v. Gentry, 540 U.S. 1 (attorney entitled to presumption of reasonable professional judgment)
- Bradley v. State, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio standard applying Strickland)
- Cook v. State, 65 Ohio St.3d 516 (courts defer to strategic decisions; hindsight not permitted)
- State v. Culver, 160 Ohio App.3d 172 (trial record should contain evidence court considered ability to pay financial sanctions)
- State v. Hull, 43 N.E.3d 775 (trial court may satisfy ability‑to‑pay consideration by reviewing PSI containing financial/employment info)