State v. Tomlinson, 2013 Ohio 3520

Darren Tomlinson was indicted on multiple counts including possession of cocaine, possession of criminal tools, and having weapons while under disability; a jury convicted him on most counts and he was sentenced to 11 years' imprisonment.
This Court initially affirmed his convictions in a direct appeal (State v. Tomlinson) and later granted Tomlinson’s application to reopen the appeal under App. R. 26(B).
On reopening, Tomlinson raised three assignments of error focused on (1) failure to notify and assess court costs in open court per R.C. 2947.23, (2) imposing a mandatory $2,500 fine without inquiring into his ability to pay per R.C. 2929.19(B), and (3) failure to give statutorily required notifications about community service credit for unpaid costs.
The trial court’s sentencing entry imposed costs and a fine, but the record lacks any on-the-record notification required by R.C. 2947.23 or a documented inquiry into Tomlinson’s financial ability to pay the fine.
The appellate court concluded Tomlinson’s appellate counsel rendered deficient performance in the reopened appeal, vacated its prior opinion, sustained all three assignments of error, reversed, and remanded for resentencing and proper imposition/notification regarding costs and fines.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court failed to comply with R.C. 2947.23 by imposing court costs without notifying defendant in open court and explaining consequences	State: costs were properly imposed by judgment entry	Tomlinson: court did not notify him at sentencing of assessment of costs or consequences (community service credit)	Court: Reversed imposition of costs; trial court failed to provide required notifications; remand for proper imposition and notification
Whether the trial court erred by not notifying defendant of potential community service and credit under R.C. 2947.23	State: no explicit response in opinion	Tomlinson: lack of statutorily required warning about community service and credit deprived due process	Court: Agreed with Tomlinson; notifications required by statute were not given; error sustained
Whether the trial court imposed a mandatory fine without considering defendant’s ability to pay (R.C. 2929.19(B))	State: imposed $2,500 fine in judgment entry	Tomlinson: trial court made no inquiry or record showing consideration of ability to pay; no PSI or financial information in record	Court: Reversed fine; trial court failed to consider ability to pay as required; remand for reconsideration

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (established the two-part ineffective-assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Hale, 119 Ohio St.3d 118 (Ohio’s recognition and application of Strickland standard for appellate-review of counsel performance)