State v. Winfield, 2014 Ohio 3968

Appellant John F. Winfield was convicted of aggravated murder with a firearm specification and sentenced to life with parole eligibility after 25 years plus a consecutive three-year term for the firearm specification.
The trial court included and entered a judgment for costs of prosecution, supervision, confinement, assigned counsel, and prosecution, finding Winfield had the ability to pay.
After sentencing, Winfield moved to waive those costs, arguing the record did not support a finding of ability to pay and that the total prosecution cost exceeded $100,000.
The trial court denied Winfield’s post-sentencing motion to waive costs.
Winfield appealed, arguing the trial court erred in imposing the costs without clear and convincing evidence of his ability to pay.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred in imposing court costs without evidence of ability to pay	Winfield: no clear and convincing evidence in the record to support ability to pay; post-release employment unlikely given age at parole	State: trial court found ability to pay; record contains statements about age, education, employment history and savings supporting that finding	Court: Affirmed. Winfield’s post-sentencing motion is barred by res judicata; alternatively, the record contains clear and convincing evidence of ability to pay

State v. Threatt, 108 Ohio St.3d 277 (Ohio 2006) (defendant must move to waive costs at sentencing to preserve challenge; otherwise issue waived/res judicata)
Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (Ohio 1958) (defines "clear and convincing evidence" standard)