State v. Thomas, 2021 Ohio 1746

During divorce-related conflict, Roberta Thomas dumped trash on her husband’s property and was charged with criminal mischief (third-degree misdemeanor).
She pleaded guilty to persistent disorderly conduct (fourth-degree misdemeanor) as part of a negotiated disposition.
The court suspended a 20-day jail term in favor of 12 months' probation and imposed a $200 discretionary fine plus $199 in court costs (total $399).
Trial counsel did not move to waive court costs or ask the court not to impose the fine; the court allowed a payment plan requiring at least $20/month.
Thomas appealed, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment and Ohio Constitution for failing to seek waiver of costs and avoidance of the fine.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to request waiver of court costs and that a discretionary fine not be imposed	State: Counsel was not ineffective; record shows Thomas was employed and a $20/month payment plan was available, so she was not indigent for purposes of waiving costs/fine	Thomas: Failure to request waiver of costs and nonimposition of the fine constituted ineffective assistance under Strickland/Bradley when defendant is indigent	Court: Affirmed—counsel not ineffective. Record (employment, $399 total, payment plan) did not show indigency; and even assuming deficient performance, no reasonable probability the outcome would differ

State v. Davis, 159 Ohio St.3d 31 (Ohio 2020) (holds Bradley/Strickland test applies when counsel fails to request waiver of court costs)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes two-prong ineffective-assistance standard of performance and prejudice)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio 1989) (Ohio adoption of Strickland standard for ineffective-assistance claims)
State v. Carter, 124 Ohio App.3d 423 (Ohio App. 1997) (refusal to consider waiving costs/fines across the board can be an abuse of discretion)