State v. West, 2022 Ohio 4069

Alyssa D. West was indicted (Aug. 26, 2021) on felonious assault (2nd°) and tampering with evidence (3rd°).
She pleaded guilty pursuant to a negotiated plea on Mar. 15, 2022; court accepted pleas and ordered a PSI.
On Apr. 21–22, 2022 the trial court sentenced West to 4–6 years for felonious assault and 18 months for tampering, to be served concurrently.
The court ordered West to pay $4,619.90 restitution and the costs of prosecution, with restitution payments to begin within 30 days and costs due within one year.
West appealed, arguing (1) the sentence is inconsistent with the purposes and principles of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 and (2) the trial court imposed restitution and costs without adequately considering her ability to pay.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the prison sentence was contrary to law because the trial court failed to properly consider R.C. 2929.11/2929.12	Trial court has broad discretion; sentence is within statutory ranges and court considered sentencing factors	West: sentence excessive, inconsistent with sentencing purposes, court failed to properly weigh recidivism/seriousness factors	Affirmed. Sentence within statutory range; appellate review limited by State v. Jones — courts may not vacate for disagreement about weight given to 2929.11/2929.12 factors
Whether restitution and costs were imposed without consideration of West’s ability to pay; whether payment deadlines were improper given incarceration	Trial court reviewed the PSI and record (satisfying consideration of ability to pay); costs of prosecution are mandatory and can be waived/suspended later	West: court imposed restitution and costs and set payment schedule without an ability-to-pay hearing and despite incarceration	Affirmed. Record (PSI) shows court considered ability to pay; costs are mandatory; payment-schedule challenge not ripe — trial court has continuing jurisdiction to modify or suspend costs/payments

State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016) (standard for appellate review under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) and definition of clear-and-convincing review)
State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242 (2020) (limits appellate relief where sentence rests solely on R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 considerations)
State v. Amos, 140 Ohio St.3d 238 (2014) (plain-error standard in sentencing context; outcome-determinative meaning)
State v. Clinton, 153 Ohio St.3d 422 (2017) (trial courts must assess costs against criminal defendants, including indigents)
State v. Taylor, 163 Ohio St.3d 508 (2020) (financial sanctions and court costs are properly part of a sentence)