State v. Warnka, 2016 Ohio 7423

Scott D. Warnka pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter (R.C. 2903.04) as part of a plea agreement; remaining charges dismissed and he agreed to testify against a co-defendant.
On March 26–27, 2015, the trial court sentenced Warnka to 11 years imprisonment (maximum first-degree term), five years post-release control, and ordered payment of various costs (supervision, confinement, assigned counsel, prosecution).
At sentencing the court said Warnka "has the ability to work" in prison and ordered him to pay costs; defense asked to stay costs until release but the court denied the request.
The judgment entry included a finding that Warnka had or reasonably may be expected to have the means to pay and ordered reimbursement for costs, including those under R.C. 2929.18.
On appeal Warnka challenged (1) imposition of costs (especially costs of confinement) without a hearing or specific factual finding of ability to pay, and (2) imposition of the maximum sentence without giving mitigating weight to his cooperation/testimony.
The court affirmed the 11-year term but reversed and remanded limited to the costs-of-confinement issue for further factual development or resentencing on that point.

Issue	Warnka's Argument	State's/Trial Court's Argument	Held
Whether trial court lawfully imposed costs (including costs of confinement) without an ability-to-pay hearing or specific findings	Trial court imposed costs of confinement without determining the amount of those costs or producing clear and convincing evidence of Warnka's ability to pay; a hearing and specific findings required under R.C. 2929.18	Trial court treated costs as appropriate (stated Warnka can work in prison) and imposed costs in the judgment entry	Reversed in part and remanded: costs-of-confinement portion vacated for resentencing; trial court must determine actual confinement costs and, by clear and convincing evidence, defendant's ability to pay before imposing them
Whether the maximum (11-year) sentence was improper because the court failed to weigh Warnka's cooperation/testimony as a mitigating factor	Warnka argued cooperation should have been given mitigating weight and reduced the sentence	Trial court considered cooperation but concluded it did not outweigh numerous aggravating factors (criminal history, violations, victim was a confidential informant, seriousness of offense) and complied with statutory sentencing requirements	Affirmed: maximum sentence within statutory range; court properly considered statutory factors and did not err in imposing maximum term

Cross v. Ledford, 120 N.E.2d 118 (Ohio 1954) (defines "clear and convincing evidence")
State v. Kalish, 896 N.E.2d 124 (Ohio 2008) (framework for appellate review of criminal sentences)