State v. Thompson, 2020 Ohio 723

David A. Thompson was indicted for possession of cocaine (20–27 grams), a second-degree felony; tried by jury January 22–23, 2019, convicted, and sentenced to a six-year mandatory prison term plus a $10,000 fine and costs.
Multiple trial dates were continued; subpoenas (and associated mileage claims) were issued to Lima police officers for several scheduled/rescheduled trial dates.
At sentencing the trial court stated (but gave little weight to) findings that the offense was committed "for hire" and "as part of an organized criminal activity," and relied heavily on recidivism factors (prior trafficking/possession convictions, on bond at time of offense, high ORAS score, failure to respond to prior sanctions).
Thompson appealed, raising two assignments: (1) sentence contrary to law because the record did not support the court’s "for hire/organized criminal activity" characterization; (2) trial court imposed unauthorized court costs (subpoena-mileage fees).
The Third District affirmed: (1) sentence within statutory range and supported by recidivism analysis; any reference to "for hire/organized criminal activity" was harmless; (2) Thompson forfeited objection to costs and failed to show plain error or prejudice, though he may seek waiver under R.C. 2947.23(C).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sentence is contrary to law because the trial court found the offense was "for hire" or "part of organized criminal activity"	State: sentence is within statutory range; court considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 and recidivism factors that justify the sentence	Thompson: record lacks evidence to support court’s findings under R.C. 2929.12(B)(7), so increased seriousness and six-year term are unsupported	Affirmed. Sentence within statutory range; court properly considered statutory factors; any overreach re "for hire/organized activity" was harmless because recidivism findings supported the sentence
Whether court costs (subpoena mileage) were unauthorized and must be vacated	State: costs of prosecution include court costs; subpoenas/mileage relate to the proceedings and were charged accordingly; even if error, defendant failed to object so plain error not shown	Thompson: trial court improperly assessed statutorily-unauthorized mileage fees and thus unauthorized court costs	Affirmed. Thompson did not object at sentencing and cannot show plain error or prejudice on this record; the record is unclear about service specifics; he may still seek waiver/suspension under R.C. 2947.23(C)

State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (Ohio 2016) (sets standard for appellate review of felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) and explains "clear and convincing" review)
Arnett v. State, 88 Ohio St.3d 208 (Ohio 2000) (trial court has broad discretion in weighing sentencing factors)
State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (Ohio 1978) (plain error rule in criminal cases is invoked only in exceptional circumstances to avoid a miscarriage of justice)
State v. Payne, 114 Ohio St.3d 502 (Ohio 2007) (distinguishes waiver from forfeiture; discusses requirements for preserving sentencing objections)
State v. Threatt, 108 Ohio St.3d 277 (Ohio 2006) (court costs are not punishment but statute requires courts to include costs of prosecution in sentence)
State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21 (Ohio 2002) (Crim.R. 52(B) plain-error framework requires error, plainness, and effect on substantial rights)