[Cite as State v. Tabor , 2017-Ohio-8656.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT JACKSON COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : Case No. 16CA9

vs. : JARRON TABOR, : DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
Defendant-Appellant. :

_________________________________________________________________ APPEARANCES: Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defender, and Ni kki Trautman Baszynski, Assistant Public Defender, Columbus, Ohio, for appellant. Justin Lovett, Jackson County Prosecuting Attorn ey, and Nick Wille, Jackson County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Jackson, Ohio, for appellee.
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM COMMON PLEAS COURT DATE JOURNALIZED: 11-16-17 ABELE, J. {¶ 1} This is an appeal from a Jackson C ounty Common Pleas Court judgment of conviction and sentence. The trial court found Jarr on Tabor, defendant be low and appellant herein, guilty of possession of cocaine in viol ation of R.C. 2925.11(A). The court sentenced appellant to serve nine years in prison. Appellant assigns th e following errors for review: FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR: “THE JACKSON COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY EXCLUDED A PORTION OF THE PUBLIC FROM JARRON TABOR’S PLEA AND SENTENCING HEARINGS.”JACKSON, 16CA9 2

SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR: “TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL CLOSURE OF JARRON TABOR’S PLEA AND SENTENCING HEARINGS.” THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR: “THE TRIAL COURT ASSESSED, AND THE CLERK OF COURTS COLLECTED, UNAUTHORIZED COURT COSTS.” {¶ 2} On December 4, 2014, the grand jury retu rned an indictment that charged appellant with first-de gree-felony possession of cocaine in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), along with a major drug offender specification. Appellant entered a not guilty plea. {¶ 3} The trial court subsequently set the matter for trial. A notice, signed by the court’s assignment commi ssioner, advised the parties of the trial date and further stated: Appropriate attire is required: No pajamas, shorts, tank tops, hats miniskirts, or halter tops. No children shall be brought to the Courthouse for your hearing. Our staff are “NOT BABYSITTERS.” All ce ll phones are to be turned off before entering the Courtroom. Appellant did not object to any of th e provisions contained in the notice. {¶ 4} On the day set for trial, the parties advised the court that they had reached a plea agreement. The state agreed to dismiss the major drug offender specification and appellant agreed to plead guilty to first-degree-felony possession of cocaine. The parties did not agree upon a sentencing recommendation, but instead, they agreed that each would be free to argue any lawful sentence. {¶ 5} After appellant entered his guilty plea, the court set the matter for a sentencing hearing. The notice that advised the parties of the sentencing hearing date repeated the sameJACKSON, 16CA9 3 information concerning attire, cell phones, and children: Appropriate attire is required: No pajamas, shorts, tank tops, hats miniskirts, or halter tops. No children shall be brought to the Courthouse for your hearing. Our staff are “NOT BABYSITTERS.” All ce ll phones are to be turned off before entering the Courtroom. Again, appellant did not object to any of the provisions. {¶ 6} After considering the arguments of counsel , the trial court sent enced appellant to serve nine years in prison and ordered him to pay court cost s. This appeal followed.
I {¶ 7} Appellant’s first and second assignme nts of error both involve the same constitutional issue–appellant’s ri ght to a public trial. For ease of discussion, we combine our discussion of the assignments of error. {¶ 8} In his first assignment of e rror, appellant asserts that the trial court’s exclusion of children from his plea and sentencing hearings violated his right to a public trial and constitutes a structural error that mandates reve rsal. Appellant alternatively argu es that the court plainly erred by excluding children from the hearings. {¶ 9} The state argues that the trial court did not issue an order that excluded anyone from attending appellant’s plea or sentencing hearings, but instead the notice that excluded children from the courtroom cont ained the court’s assignment commissioner’s signature. The state thus asserts that appellant cannot show that the trial cour t issued an order that excluded anyone from appellant’s plea or sentencing hearing. Alternatively, the state contends that the court’s exclusion of children from the hearings constitutes neither plain nor structural error because any exclusion of children from the courtroom is, at most, a trivial closure that does notJACKSON, 16CA9 4 impact appellant’s right to a public trial. The state argues that “the language in the hearing notices is properly understood not as language clos ing the court, but as language regulating the decorum of the court.” {¶ 10} In his second assignment of error, appe llant argues that tr ial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to object to the notice that prohibited children from attending his hearings. He asserts that c ounsel’s failure to object constitutes deficient performance that prejudiced the outcome. Appellant claims that if counsel had objected, the trial court would have been re quired to state its reason on the record for excluding children. Appellant argues that the record fails to es tablish any reason for excluding children from the courtroom. He thus asserts that an objection would have caused the court to allow children to attend his hearings. {¶ 11} The state also contends that even if trial counsel perfo rmed deficiently, appellant cannot establish that the outcome of the proceedings would have been differe nt if the trial court had permitted children to attend the hearings.
A RIGHT TO PUBLIC TRIAL {¶ 12} “‘The right to a public trial is an impor tant, fundamental c onstitutional guarantee of both the United States and Ohio Constitutions.’” 1 State ex rel. The Repository, Div. of

1 The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that a defendant “shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial.” Section 16, Article I of the Ohio Constitution provides: All courts shall be open, and every person, for an injury done him in his land, goods, person, or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law, and shall have justice administered without denial or delay.JACKSON, 16CA9 5 Thompson Newspapers, Inc. v. Unger , 28 Ohio St.3d 418, 420, 504 N.E.2d 37 (1986), quoting
State v. Lane , 60 Ohio St.2d 112, 119, 397 N.E.2d 1338 (1979), and citing State v. Hensley , 75 Ohio St. 255, 264, 79 N.E. 462 (1906). “[O]pen trials ensure respect for th e justice system and allow the press and the public to judge the proceedings that occur in our Nation’s courts.” Weaver v. Massachusetts , — U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 1899, 1913, 198 L.Ed.2d 420 (2017). “‘[T]he public-trial guarantee em bodies a view of human nature, true as a general rule, that judges, lawyers, witnesses, and jurors will perform their respective func tions more responsibly in an open court than in secret proceedings.’” Waller v. Georgia , 467 U.S. 39, 104 S.Ct. 2210, 81 L.Ed.2d 31 (1984), fn. 4, quoting Estes v. Texas , 381 U.S. 532, 588, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 14 L.Ed.2d 543 (1965) (Harlan, J., concurring). “The knowledge that every criminal trial is subject to contemporaneous review in the forum of public opi nion is an effective restraint on possible abuse of judicial power.” In re Oliver , 333 U.S. 257, 270, 68 S.Ct. 499, 92 L.Ed.2d 682 (1948). Thus, the public-trial “guarantee ‘ * * * is a co rnerstone of our democracy which should not be circumvented unless there are extreme overriding circumstances.’” Unger , 28 Ohio St.3d at 420 quoting Lane, 60 Ohio St.2d at 119. {¶ 13} Before a court may circumvent a defenda nt’s public-trial right by closing the courtroom, the party requesting clos ure “must advance an overriding in terest that is likely to be prejudiced, the closure must be no broader than necessary to protect that interest, the trial court must consider reasonable alternatives to closing the proceeding, and it must make findings adequate to support the closure.” Waller , 467 U.S. at 48. {¶ 14} Additionally, we observe that [a] trial judge has authority to exercise control over the proceedings andJACKSON, 16CA9 6 the discretion to impose control over the proceedings. Nonetheless, the abridgement of a defendant’s right to a public trial may occur only when necessary, and any closure must be na rrowly drawn and applied sparingly. State v. Drummond , 111 Ohio St.3d 14, 2006-Ohio-5084, 854 N.E.2d 1038, ¶51. Thus, although the right to a public trial is not absolute, exceptions are rare. Weaver , 137 S.Ct. at 1909 (explaining that although exceptions to the public-trial right “should be rare, a judge may deprive a defendant of his right to an open c ourtroom by making prope r factual findings in support of the decision to do so”).
B PUBLIC-TRIAL VIOLATION IS STRUCTURAL ERROR {¶ 15} A violation of a defendant’s public-trial right constitutes a structural error.
Weaver , 137 S.Ct. at 1908; Drummond at ¶50, citing Waller , 467 U.S. at 49-50, fn.9. A structural error “‘affect[s] the framework within which the trial proceeds,’ rather than being ‘simply an error in the trial process itself.’” Weaver at 1907, quoting Arizona v. Fulminante , 499 U.S. 279, 310, 111 S.Ct. 1246, 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991). Thus , a structural erro r that a defendant objects to at trial ordinarily mandates “‘automatic reversal,’” “regardless of the error’s ‘actual effect on the outcome.’” Id. at 1910, quoting Neder v. United States , 527 U.S. 1, 7, 119 S.Ct. 1827, 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999). The structural-error-aut omatic-reversal rule exists “to ensure insistence on certain basic, constitutional guarant ees that should define the framework of any criminal trial.” Id. at 1907. {¶ 16} Moreover, “a structural error ‘def[ies] analysis by harmless error standards.” Id. at 1908, quoting Fulminante, 499 U.S. at 309. Struct ural errors are not easily evaluated for harmless error for three primary reasons: (1) “the right at issue is not designed to protect theJACKSON, 16CA9 7
defendant from erroneous c onviction but instead protects some othe r interest;” (2) “the effects of the error are simply too hard to measure,” and (3) “the error always results in fundamental unfairness.” Id. A structural error need not satisfy all three of the foregoing conditions, however. Id. Instead, “[a]n error can count as struct ural even if the error does not lead to fundamental unfairness in every case.” Id. , citing United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez , 548 U.S. 140, 149, 126 S.Ct. 2557, 165 L.Ed.2d 409 (2006), fn.4. {¶ 17} A public-trial violation constitutes structur al error “because of the ‘difficulty of assessing the effect of the error,’” and because it “furthers interests other than protecting the defendant against unj ust conviction.” Id. at 1910, quoting Gonzalez-Lopez , 548 U.S. at 149, fn.4. The reason for classifying a public-trial violation as stru ctural error is not, however, because it always result in fundamental unfairness. Id. at 1909-1910. Instead, “in some cases an unlawful closure might take place and yet the trial still will be fundamentally fair from the defendant’s standpoint.” Id. at 1910. {¶ 18} A defendant who fails to object at trial to a structural error ordinarily is not entitled to an automatic reversal. Id. (pointing out that the automatic-reversal rule ordinarily applies when the defendant objects at trial to stru ctural error). Rather, a defendant who fails to timely object to structural error ordinarily will be limited to plain-error review. See Drummond at ¶59 (explaining that “counsel’s failure to obj ect to the closing of the courtroom constitutes a waiver of the right to a public trial * * * ”); State v. Conway , 108 Ohio St.3d 214, 2006-Ohio-791, 842 N.E.2d 996, ¶103 (noting that defenda nt’s failure to raise public-trial issue during guilt-phase “waived” the issue); see also United States v. Marcus , 560 U.S. 258, 266, 130 S.Ct. 2159, 176 L.Ed.2d 1012 (2010) (internal quotation omitted) (explaining that the plain-errorJACKSON, 16CA9 8 rule does not except “serious errors” from its application); Puckett v. United States , 556 U.S. 129, 140, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009) (noting that court has declined to decide whether structural error automa tically shows that error aff ected substantial rights under plain-error analysis); Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 466, 117 S.Ct. 1544, 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997) (stating that “the seri ousness of the error claimed does not remove consideration of it from the ambit of the” plain-error rule); State v. Rogers , 143 Ohio St.3d 385, 2015-Ohio-2459, 38 N.E.3d 860, ¶24 (stating that court has “rejected the notion that there is any category of forfeited error that is not subject to the plain erro r rule’s requirement of prejudicial effect on the outcome”); State v. Perry , 101 Ohio St.3d 118, 2004-Ohio-297, 802 N.E.2d 643, ¶23 (observing that both United States and Ohio Supreme Courts “have cautioned against applying a structural-error analysis where * * * the case w ould be otherwise governed by Crim.R. 52(B) because the defendant did not raise the error in the trial court”); State v. Hill , 92 Ohio St.3d 191, 199, 749 N.E.2d 274 (1991) (observing that structur al-error analysis appears inappropriate in plain-error context); State v. Creech , 4 th Dist. Scioto No. 12CA3500, 2013-Ohio-3791, 2013 WL 4735469, fn.11 (noting that courts have expressed doubt whether structural error analysis appropriate when error not objected to at trial); see generally Levine v. United States , 362 U.S. 610, 619–20, 80 S.Ct. 1038, 4 L.Ed.2d 989 (1960) (“Due rega rd generally for the public nature of the judicial process does not requi re disregard of the solid demands of the fair administration of justice in favor of a party who, at the appropr iate time and acting under advice of counsel, saw no disregard of a right, but rais es an abstract claim only as an afterthought on appeal.”). But see State v. Bethel , 110 Ohio St.3d 416, 2006-Ohio-4853, 854 N.E.2d 150, ¶81 (holding thatJACKSON, 16CA9 9 defendant’s failure to object to closur e did not waive his public-trial right). 2 {¶ 19} The rationale for requiring defendants to timely object to even structural error, or else forfeit all but plain error, is to prevent defe ndants from “remaining silent at trial only later to raise the error on appeal where the convic tion would be automati cally reversed.” Perry at ¶23. Stated otherwise: “An expansion of Crim.R. 52(B) , without justification, would upset the careful balancing of the need to encourag e trial participants to seek a fa ir and accurate tr ial the first time against an insistence that any obvious injustice be promp tly redressed.” State v. Morgan , Slip Op. 2017-Ohio-7565, — Ohio St.3d —, ¶36, citing Roge rs at ¶24. As the court explained in Perry , “our holdings should foster rather than th wart judicial economy by providing incentives (and not disincentives) for the defe ndant to raise all errors in the trial court—where, in many cases, such errors can be easily corrected.” Id. at ¶23. {¶ 20} Thus, requiring a party to raise objections at trial serves to induce the timely raising of claims and objections, which gives the [trial] court the opportunity to consid er and resolve them. That court is ordinarily in the best position to determine the relevant f acts and adjudicate the dispute. In the case of an actual or invited procedural error, the [trial] court can often correct or avoid the mistake so that it cannot possibl y affect the ultimate outcome. And of course the contemporaneous-objection rule prevents a litigant from “‘sandbagging’” the court—re maining silent about hi s objection and belatedly raising the error only if the case does not conclude in his favor. Cf. Wainwright v. Sykes , 433 U.S. 72, 89, 97 S.Ct. 2497, 53 L.Ed.2d 594 (1977); see also United States v. Vonn , 535 U.S. 55, 72, 122 S.Ct. 1043, 152 L.Ed.2d 90 (2002). 556 U.S. at 134. 3

2 Bethel , a case that preceded Drummond by fourteen days, appears to directly conflict with Drummond. Because Drummond is the more recent precedent, we find it appropr iate to follow its hold ing rather than the Bethel holding. Additionally, the other cited cases decided subsequent to Drummond appear more congruent with Drummond than Bethel

.
3 As noted in Puckett , the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedur e prescribe the procedure for preservingJACKSON, 16CA9 10 {¶ 21} For instance, in the public-trial context, “when a defendant objects to a courtroom closure, the trial court can either order the cour troom opened or explain the reasons for keeping it closed.” Weaver , 137 S.Ct. at 1912. When, however, “a de fendant first raises the closure” on direct appeal, “the trial court is deprived of the chance to cure the violation either by opening the courtroom or by explaining the reasons for the closure.” 4 Id. Thus, a defendant who fails to timely object to an alleged public-trial violation forfeits all but plain error. {¶ 22} In the case sub judice, if we assume, ar guendo, that the trial court’s notice that prohibited children from entering the courtroom c onstitutes a public-trial violation, and hence, a structural error, we believe that appellant, by failing to object to the notice, forfeited his right to challenge even this alleged structural error on a ppeal. However, although appellant’s failure to raise the issue during the trial court proceedings means that he cannot now obtain relief under the structural-error-automa tic-reversal rule, we may choose to recognize the error under the plain-error doctrine.

alleged error: In federal criminal cases, Rule 51(b) tells parties how to preserve claims of error: “by informing the court—when the court ruling or order is made or sought—of the action the party wishes the court to take, or the party’s objection to the cour t’s action and the grounds for that objection.” 556 U.S. at 135. In Ohio, Crim.R. 51 states: An exception, at any stage or step of the cas e or matter, is unnecessary to lay a foundation for review, whenever a matter has been called to th e attention of the court by objection, motion, or otherwise, and the court has ruled thereon.

4 We recognize that in Weaver the defendant raised the public-trial issue, not on a direct appeal, but rather, five years later in a motion for a new trial. Thus, th e procedural context differs from the case sub judice. Nonetheless, we believe Weaver may fairly be interpreted to mean that a public-trial violation is subject to forfeiture when a defendant fails to timely object at trial, regardless of whether the issue is first raised on direct appeal or in a postconviction proceedings. The same rationale applies regardless of th e particular procedural posture. Furthermore, we observe that earlier cases seemingly rej ected the notion that structural error evades plain-error review. See cases cited supra .JACKSON, 16CA9 11
C PLAIN ERROR {¶ 23} The Ohio Supreme Court recently reiterated the well-established rules regarding the plain-error doctrine in State v. Morgan , supra : Crim.R. 52(B) provides that “[p]lain e rrors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court.” “By its very terms, the rule places three limitations on a reviewing court’s decision to correct an error” that was not preserved at trial. State v. Barnes , 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27, 759 N.E.2d 1240 (2002). First, an error, “i.e. a deviation from a legal rule,” must have occurred. Id. , citing State v. Hill , 92 Ohio St.3d 191, 200, 749 N.E.2d 274 (2001), citing United States v. Olano , 507 U.S. 725, 732, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). Second, the error complained of must be plain, that is, it must be “an ‘obvious ' defect in the trial proceedings.” Id. , citing State v. Sanders , 92 Ohio St.3d 245, 257, 750 N.E.2d 90 (2001), citing State v. Keith , 79 Ohio St.3d 514, 518, 684 N.E.2d 47 (1997). “Third, the error must have affected ‘substantial rights.’ We have interpreted this * * * to mean that the trial court’s error must have affected the outcome of the trial.” Id. Even when a defendant demonstrates that the factors under Crim.R. 52 exist, “we have ‘admonish[ed] courts to notice plain error “with the utmost caution, under exceptional ci rcumstances and only to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice.”’” (Emphasis and brackets in Rogers.) State v. Rogers , 143 Ohio St.3d 385, 2015-Ohio-2459, 38 N.E.3d 860, ¶23, quoting Barnes at 27, 759 N.E.2d 1240, quoting State v. Long , 53 Ohio St.2d 91, 372 N.E.2d 804 (1978), paragraph three of the syllabus. Id. at ¶¶35-36. {¶ 24} Ohio courts may not presume prejudi ce in the plain-error context. Id. at ¶50, quoting Rogers at ¶24 (noting that court has “‘never reco gnized the hybrid type of plain error * * * that is presumptively prejudicial and is reversible error per se’”) Id. at ¶50. Consequently, “showing that an error occurred is not enough” in the plain-error context. Id. at ¶51. Instead, the defendant “also has the bur den to prove that the error affected the outcome of the proceeding.” Id. (explaining that error in failing to appoint guardian ad litem at amenabilityJACKSON, 16CA9 12 hearing would affect the outcome of proceeding in juvenile bind-over situation if, but for the error, juvenile would not have been bound-ove r). A defendant’s “speculation cannot prove prejudice.” Id. at ¶53. {¶ 25} In the case at bar, if we assume, argue ndo, that the trial court’s notice to exclude children from the courtroom obviously violated a ppellant’s public-trial ri ght, we do not agree with appellant that the alleged public-trial violation affected the outcome of the proceedings. Appellant claims that he need not show that the alleged error affected his decision to plead guilty or that he would have received a lesser sentence in order to demonstrate that the alleged error affected the outcome of the proceedings. Instead, he asserts that he need only show that but for the alleged error, “he would have received a public proceeding in which to enter a plea and receive a sentence.” We, however, do not agree with appellant’s interpretation of the phrase “affected the outcome of the proceeding.” {¶ 26} In Morgan , the court did not examine the pr ejudice component by considering whether, but for the failure to appoint a GAL at the amenability h earing, the juvenile would have received an amenability hearing with a GAL. Rath er, the court looked to whether the absence of a GAL (the plain error) affected the outcome of the amenability proceeding, meaning whether the juvenile would not have been bound over if the c ourt had appointed a GAL to represent him at the amenability hearing. Id. at ¶51 (stating that under plai n-error review, defendant bore “burden to prove that the error affected the outcome of the proceeding, that is, that he would not have been bound over to the adult court”). Morgan thus refutes appellant’s assertion that an error may affect the outcome of the proceeding s imply because but for the error, the proceeding would have occurred in a di fferent manner. Instead, Morgan indicates that an error affects theJACKSON, 16CA9 13 outcome of a proceeding when but for the error, the ultimate outcome of the proceeding would have been different. See State v. Mohamed , Slip Op. 2017-Ohio-7468, – Ohio St.3d —, ¶26 (stating that plain error must affect “the outcome of the trial”); Rogers at ¶22 (explaining that plain error “must have affected the outcome of the trial”); State v. Sowell , 148 Ohio St.3d 554, 2016-Ohio-8025, 71 N.E.3d 1034, ¶36, quoting Bethel at ¶87 (explaining that when public-trial violation occurs, “‘[if] a new h earing could not materially change the position of the parties, there is no need for either a new hearing or a new trial’”); Hill, 92 Ohio St.3d at 203 (“Reversal is warranted only if the outcome of the trial clearly would have been differe nt absent the error.”); see United States v. Davila , 133 S.Ct. 2139, 2147, 186 L.Ed.2d 139 (2013), quoting United States v. Dominguez Benitez , 542 U.S. 74, 83, 124 S.Ct. 2333, 159 L.Ed.2d 90 (2002) (stating that “‘a defendant who seeks reve rsal of his conviction after a guilty plea, on the ground that the district court committed plain e rror under Rule 11, must show a reasonable probability that, but for the error, he would not have entered the plea’”). {¶ 27} In the case sub judice, appellant has not raised any argument that the ultimate outcome of the proceedings would have been different if the court had engaged in an analysis to determine whether closing the courtroom to children violated appellant’s right to a public trial, or that the ultimate outcome of the proceedings woul d have been different if the court had allowed children to attend the proceedings. Furthermore, we point out that the record contains no evidence that anyone who wished to attend the proceedings was actually denied entrance to the courtroom. Even though appellant has children, nothing in the record indicates that they attempted to attend the proceedin gs and were denied entrance. Additionally, a ppellant does not contend that he would have not entered a guilty plea and been sentenced to nine years in prison ifJACKSON, 16CA9 14 children had attended the proceedings . Instead, he alleges that he is entitled to have completely open plea and sentencing hearings, without ex cluding children. Appellant, however, does not explain how any alleged violation of his public-trial right impacted his decision to plead guilty, or the court’s decision to impose a nine-year pr ison sentence. Conseque ntly, appellant cannot show that any obvious error the court may have committed by issuing a notice 5 excluding children from the courtroom affected the outcome of the proceedings. Appellant has not raised any argument that the outcome of the proceed ings (i.e., his guilty plea and nine-year prison sentence) would have been any di fferent if the court had not issu ed a notice to exclude children from his plea and sentencing hearings. Thus, even if appellant showed that the court’s notice to exclude children obviously violates his public-trial right, he cannot illustrate that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different in the absence of the alleged error. {¶ 28} Accordingly, based upon the foregoing r easons, we overrule appellant’s first assignment of error.
D INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL {¶ 29} In his second assignment of error, appellant argues that trial counsel's failure to object to the alleged public-trial violation constitutes ineffective assistance counsel.
1 Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Standard {¶ 30} The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 10

5 We presume for purposes of this appeal that the notice that contained the assignment commissioner’s signature constituted an order from the trial court

.JACKSON, 16CA9 15 of the Ohio Constitution provide that defendant s in all criminal proceedings shall have the assistance of counsel for thei r defense. The United States Supreme Court has generally interpreted this provision to mean a criminal defendant is entitled to the “reasonably effective assistance” of counsel. Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); accord Hinton v. Alabama , ––– U.S. –––, 134 S.Ct. 1081, 1087–1088, 188 L.Ed.2d 1 (2014) (explaining that the Sixth Amendment righ t to counsel means “tha t defendants are entitled to be represented by an attorney who meets at least a minimal standard of competence”). {¶ 31} To establish constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show (1) that his counsel’s pe rformance was deficient and (2) that the defici ent performance prejudiced the defense and deprived the defendant of a fair trial. E.g., Strickland , 466 U.S. at 687; State v. Obermiller , 147 Ohio St.3d 175, 2016–Ohio–1594, 63 N.E.3d 93, ¶83; State v. Powell, 132 Ohio St.3d 233, 2012–Ohio–2577, 971 N.E .2d 865, ¶85. “Failure to establish either element is fatal to the claim.” State v. Jones , 4th Dist. Scioto No. 06CA3116, 2008–Ohio–968, ¶14. Therefore, if one element is dispositive, a court need not analyze both. State v. Madrigal , 87 Ohio St.3d 378, 389, 721 N.E.2d 52 (2000) (stating that a defendant’s failure to satisfy one of the elements “negates a court’s need to consider the other”). {¶ 32} The deficient performance part of an ineffectiveness claim “is necessarily linked to the practice and expectations of the legal community: ‘The proper measure of attorney performance remains simply reasonablene ss under prevailing prof essional norms.’” Padilla v. Kentucky , 559 U.S. 356, 366, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010), quoting Strickland , 466 U.S. at 688; accord Hinton , 134 S.Ct. at 1088. “Prevailing profe ssional norms dictate that with regard to decisions pertaining to legal proceedings, ‘a lawyer must have “full authority to manageJACKSON, 16CA9 16
the conduct of the trial.”’” Obermiller at ¶85, quoting State v. Pasqualone , 121 Ohio St.3d 186, 2009–Ohio–315, 903 N.E.2d 270, ¶24, quoting Taylor v. Illinois , 484 U.S. 400, 418, 108 S.Ct. 646, 98 L.Ed.2d 798 (1988). Furthermore, “‘[i]n an y case presenting an ineffectiveness claim, “the performance inquiry must be whether counsel’s assistance was reasonable considering all the circumstances.’” Hinton , 134 S.Ct. at 1088, quoting Strickland , 466 U.S. at 688. Accordingly, “[i]n order to show deficient perfo rmance, the defendant must prove that counsel’s performance fell below an objective leve l of reasonable representation.” State v. Conway , 109 Ohio St.3d 412, 2006–Ohio–2815, 848 N.E.2d 810, ¶95 (citations omitted); accord Hinton , 134 S.Ct. at 1088, citing Padilla, 559 U.S. at 366; State v. Wesson , 137 Ohio St.3d 309, 2013–Ohio–4575, 999 N.E.2d 557, ¶81. {¶ 33} Moreover, when considering whether tr ial counsel’s representation amounts to deficient performance, “a court mu st indulge a strong presumpti on that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reas onable professional assistance.” Strickland , 466 U.S. at 689. Thus, “the defendant must overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action might be considered sound trial strategy.” Id. Additionally, “[a] properly licensed attorney is presumed to execute his duties in an ethical and competent manner.” State v. Taylor , 4th Dist. Washington No. 07CA11, 2008–Ohio–482, ¶10, citing State v. Smith, 17 Ohio St.3d 98, 100, 477 N.E.2d 1128 (1985). Therefore, a defendant bears the burden to show ineffectiveness by demons trating that counsel’s errors were “so serious” that counsel failed to function “as the ‘counsel’ guaranteed * * * by the Sixth Amendment.” Strickland , 466 U.S. at 687; e.g., Obermiller at ¶84; State v. Gondor , 112 Ohio St.3d 377, 2006–Ohio–6679, 860 N.E.2d 77, ¶62; State v. Hamblin , 37 Ohio St.3d 153, 156, 524 N.E.2d 476 (1988).JACKSON, 16CA9 17 {¶ 34} To establish prejudice, a defendant ordina rily must demonstrate that a reasonable probability exists that “‘but for counsel’s errors , the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a proba bility sufficient to undermine the outcome.’”
Hinton , 134 S.Ct. at 1089, quoting Strickland , 466 U.S. at 694; e.g., State v. Short , 129 Ohio St.3d 360, 2011–Ohio–3641, 952 N.E.2d 1121, ¶113; State v. Bradley , 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 538 N.E.2d 373 (1989), paragraph three of the syllabus. “‘[T]he question is whether there is a reasonable probability that, absent the errors, the factfinder would have had a reasonable doubt respecting guilt.’” Hinton , 134 S.Ct. at 1089, quoting Strickland , 466 U.S. at 695. Furthermore, courts may not simply assume th e existence of prejudice, but must require the defendant to affirmativel y establish prejudice. State v. Clark , 4th Dist. Pike No. 02CA684, 2003–Ohio–1707, ¶22; State v. Tucker , 4th Dist. Ross No. 01CA2592 (Apr. 2, 2002). As we have repeatedly recognized, speculation is insuffi cient to demonstrate th e prejudice component of an ineffective assistan ce of counsel claim. E.g., State v. Jenkins , 4th Dist. Ross No. 13CA3413, 2014–Ohio–3123, ¶22; State v. Simmons , 4th Dist. Highland No. 13CA4, 2013–Ohio–2890, ¶25; State v. Halley , 4th Dist. Gallia No. 10CA13, 2012–Ohio–1625, ¶25; State v. Leonard , 4th Dist. Athens No. 08CA24, 2009–Ohio–6191, ¶68; accord State v. Powell , 132 Ohio St.3d 233, 2012–Ohio–2577, 971 N.E.2d 865, ¶86 (stating that an argument that is purely speculative cannot serve as the basis for an ineffectiveness claim). 6

6 In Weaver , the United States Supreme Court stated that “t he prejudice inquiry is not meant to be applied in a ‘mechanical’ fashion.” Id. at 1911, quoting Strickland , 466 U.S. at 696. Instead, “when a court is evaluating an ineffective-assistance claim, the ultimate inquiry must concentrate on ‘the fundamental fairness of the proceeding.’” Id. at 1911, quoting Strickland , 466 U.S. at 696. The Weaver court did not, however, hold that “even if there is no showing of a reasonable probability of a different outcome, relief still must be granted if the [defendant] shows that attorney errors rendered the trial fundamentally unfair.” Id. Rather, the Weaver court simply presumed, “[f]or analytical purposes,” that this interpretation is correct and did not actually decide the issue. Id.JACKSON, 16CA9 18
2 Ineffective Assistance in Public-trial Context {¶ 35} In Weaver , the court directly addr essed a defendant’s assert ion that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to object at tr ial to an alleged public-trial violation. The Weaver court rejected the assertion that an ineffective-assistance claim involving a public-trial violation, i.e ., structural error, manda tes automatic reversal. Weaver at 1911 (“when a defendant raises a public -trial violation via an ineffective-assist ance-of-counsel claim, Strickland prejudice is not shown automatically”). Inst ead, the court held that the general rules regarding ineffective-assistance claims apply to public-trial violations raised for the first time as an ineffective-assistance claim. Id. (stating that “the burden is on the defendant to show either a reasonable probability of a different outcome in his or her case or, as the Court has assumed for these purposes * * * to show that the particular public-trial violation was so serious as to render his or her trial funda mentally unfair”). {¶ 36} In analyzing the defendant’s ineffective-assistance claim, the court presumed that trial counsel performed deficiently by failing to object to the closure. The Weaver court concluded, however, that the de fendant could not establish the second component of an ineffective-assistance claim. The court deter mined that the defendant did not establish “a reasonable probability that the jury would not have convicted him if his attorney had objected to the closure.” Id. at 1912. The court explained: It is of course possible that potential jurors might have behaved differently if petitioner’s family had been present. And it is true that the presence of the public might have had so me bearing on juror reac tion. But here petitioner offered no “evidence or legal argument establishing prejudice” in the sense of a reasonable probability of a different outcome but for counsel’s failure to object.JACKSON, 16CA9 19 App. To Pet. For Cert. 64a; see Strickland , 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Id. at 1912-1913. {¶ 37} The court additionally rejected any argument that trial counsel’s failure to object rendered the trial fundame ntally unfair. The court noted th at the defendant’s mother and her minister were excluded from the courtroom for two days during jury selection, but further pointed out that the “trial was not conducted in secret or in a remote place.” Id. at 1913. The court further observed that [t]he closure was limited to voir dire; the courtroom remained open during the evidentiary phase of the trial; the closur e decision apparently was made by court officers rather than the judge; there were many members of the venire who did not become jurors but who did observe the proceedings; and there was a record made of the proceedings that does not indicate any basis for concern, other than the closure itself. Id. The court also determined that none of the potential harms flowing from a courtroom closure came to pass in this case. For example, there is no suggestion th at any juror lied during voir dire; no suggestion of misbehavior by the prosecuto r, judge, or any other party; and no suggestion that any of the participants failed to approach their duties with the neutrality and serious purpose that our system demands. Id. The court ultimately c oncluded that the public-trial violati on “did not pervade the whole trial or lead to basic unfairness.” Id. {¶ 38} In the case at bar, even if we presume that trial c ounsel performed deficiently, appellant has failed to show a reasonable probability that the re sult of the proceedings would have been different if counsel ha d objected to the closure. We again note that appellant did not argue that the ultimate result (guilty plea and ensuring sentence) might have been different ifJACKSON, 16CA9 20 counsel had objected. Instead, appe llant claims that an objection would have caused the court to allow children to attend the proceedings. Howeve r, as we explain in our discussion of the plain-error doctrine, the result of the proceedings means the ultimate result of the proceeding or proceedings (bind-over to criminal court, finding of guilt, etc.), not the manner in which the proceeding was or was not conduc ted (without a guardian ad lite m, with a closed courtroom, etc.). For example, in Weaver the court stated that the defendant failed to establish “prejudice in the ordinary sense, i.e., a reasona ble probability that the jury woul d not have convicted him if his attorney had objected to the closure.” Id. at 1912. The court did not indicate that the defendant could show prejudice simply by alleging that if counsel had objected to the closure, the court would have allowed the tr ial to proceed in a different manne r. The prejudice inquiry examines the impact the alleged deficiency had on the overall outcome of the proceeding or proceedings and not simply the impact the alleged deficiency had on the manner in wh ich the court conducted the proceedings. Otherwise, the rule would only require a defendant to show a reasonable probability that the court woul d have conducted the proceedin gs in a different manner. {¶ 39} In the case sub judice, appella nt did not argue that if tr ial counsel had objected to the alleged public-trial violation, he would not have entered his gu ilty plea or been sentenced to nine years in prison. Thus, he cannot s how prejudice “in the ordinary sense.” Id. Furthermore, assuming, as the Weaver court did, that a defendant may satisfy the prejudice component of an ineffective-assi stance claim by demonstrating th at the trial wa s fundamentally unfair, id. at 1913, in the case sub judice appellant cannot show that counsel’s failure to object rendered the trial fundame ntally unfair. Appellant did not suggest that anyone actually was prevented from entering the courtroom. The alleged closure did not exclude the entireJACKSON, 16CA9 21 population, and the record contains no evidence that the courtroom doors were ever actually locked. Additionally, the decision to exclude children appears to have originated from the court’s assignment commissioner, rather than from the trial judge. Id. (pointing out that “the closure decision apparently was ma de by court officers rather than the judge”). Also, the trial court made a record of the proceedings and there is no indication that the proceedings were conducted outside of the norm. {¶ 40} Furthermore, a review of the record fails to suggest that any of “the potential harms flowing from a courtroom closure came to pass in this case.” Id. at 1914. Nothing in the record shows that the prosecutor, judge, de fense counsel, or any other party engaged in misbehavior or that “any of the participants failed to approach their duties with the neutrality and serious purpose that our system demands.” Id. at 1913. {¶ 41} Consequently, after our review of the record in the case sub judice we do not believe that any public-trial violation that might have occurred “prevade [d] the whole trial or [led] to basic unfairness.” Id. Appellant cannot, therefore, demonstrate that any alleged deficient performance affected the outcome of the proceedings or rendered the trial fundamentally unfair (again, presuming as the Weaver court did that fundame ntal unfairness is sufficient to satisfy the prej udice component of an ineff ective-assistance claim). {¶ 42} Accordingly, based upon the foregoing r easons, we overrule appellant’s second assignment of error.
II {¶ 43} In his third assignment of error, appellant asserts that the trial court erred by imposing unauthorized court costs. In particular, appellant a sserts that the court wronglyJACKSON, 16CA9 22 imposed mileage costs associated with the service of subpoenas. Appellant alleges that the sheriff’s office served subpoenas on its officers who worked within the same sheriff’s office and charged mileage for serving the subpoenas. A ppellant argues that R.C. 311.17(B)(1) does not allow miles not traveled to be included in court costs. {¶ 44} Initially, we point out that appellant did not object to the imposition of these court costs during the trial court proceedings. Consequently, he forfeited the error. State v. Johnson , 3rd Dist. Allen No. 1-16-41, 2017-Ohio- 6930, 2017 WL 3129378, ¶24 (concluding that defendant’s failure to object to costs during trial court proceedings forfeited the error); see State v. Thomas , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104567, 2017-Ohio-4436, 2017 WL 2687805, ¶5 (failure to object at sentencing to restitution order forfeits all but plain error on appeal); State v. Perry , 4th Dist. Pike No. 16CA863, 2017-Ohio-69, 2017 WL 105959, ¶14 (failure to object to during trial court proceedings forfeits sentencing issues absent plain error). We may, however, review it using a plain-error analysis. {¶ 45} Generally, we recognize plain error “‘ with the utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice.’” State v. Landrum , 53 Ohio St.3d 107, 111, 559 N.E.2d 710 (1990), quoting State v. Long , 53 Ohio St.2d 91, 372 N.E.2d 804 (1978), paragraph three of the syllabus. For plain error to apply, the trial court must have deviated from a legal rule, the error must have been an obvious defect in the proceeding, and the error must have affected a substantial right. E.g. , State v. Barnes , 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27, 759 N.E.2d 1240 (2002). {¶ 46} In the case at bar, appellant did not suggest that we review his assignment of errorJACKSON, 16CA9 23 using a plain error analysis. We th erefore decline to do so sua sponte. 7 State v. Steers , 4th Dist. Washington No. 11CA33, 2013-Ohio-3266, 2013 WL 3895819, ¶20; State v. Suman , 4th Dist. Athens No. 10CA11, 2010–Ohio–6204, ¶43. Accord State v. Wright , 9th Dist. Summit No. 25638, 2011–Ohio–5641, ¶5, quoting State v. Arnold , 9th Dist. Summit No. 24400, 2009–Ohio–2108, ¶8 (“‘[T]his Court will not construc t a claim of plain error on a defendant's behalf if the defendant fails to argue plain error on appeal.’”). {¶ 47} In any event, we find it questionable whether any incorrect mileage charges would affect appellant’s “substantial ri ghts” and require us to reverse in order to correct a manifest miscarriage of justice. See State v. Taylor , 4th Dist. Adams No. 16CA1028 2017-Ohio-4395, 2017 WL 2655848, ¶17 (finding it “uncertain whether any difference that might exist between the two [court cost] figures would affect ‘substantial rights’”); see also State v. Allen , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 96952, 2012-Ohio-1193, 2012 WL 986206, ¶ 11 (pointing out that defendant’s agreement to “pay more than $20,000 as restitu tion” indicated “that the imposition of $774.00 for court costs and a fine is not promoting a manifest miscarriage of justice”). {¶ 48} Accordingly, based upon the foregoing r easons, we overrule appellant’s third assignment of error and affirm the trial court’s judgment. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

7 We also point out that while the record contains the clerk’s execution of costs in the amount of $1,415, the record does not contain copies of the subpoenas to which appellant refers in his appellate brief or reveal how court costs were calculated.JACKSON, 16CA9 24

Harsha, J., concurring: {¶ 49} Initially, I conclude it would indeed be risky for the trial court to assume that anything in our disposition of the first two assi gnment of error would support the trial court’s closure rule in the event of a proper objecti on during a trial or sentencing hearing. {¶ 50} And although I concur in judgment and opinion on the first two assignments of error, I concur in judgment only on the third. I limit my concurrence to our discretion not address plain errors in this factual scenario.JACKSON, 16CA9 25

JUDGMENT ENTRY It is ordered that the judgment be affirmed and that appellee recover of appellant the costs herein taxed. The Court finds there were reas onable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Jackson County Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution. If a stay of execution of sentence and releas e upon bail has been previously granted, it is continued for a period of sixty days upon the bail pr eviously posted. The purpose of said stay is to allow appellant to file with the Ohio Supreme Court an application for a stay during the pendency of the proceedings in that court. The stay as herein continued will terminate at the expiration of the sixty day period. The stay will also terminate if appellant fails to file a notice of appeal with the Ohio Supreme Court in the forty-five da y period pursuant to Rule II, Sec. 2 of the Rules of Practice of the Ohio Supreme Court. Additionally, if the Oh io Supreme Court dismisse s the appeal prior to the expiration of said sixty days, the stay will terminate as of the date of such dismissal. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute that mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appella te Procedure. Harsha, J.: Concurs in Judgment & Opinion as to Assignments of Error I & II & Concurs in Judgment Only as to Assignment of Error III Hoover, J.: Concurs in Judgment Only For the Court

BY: Peter B. Abele, JudgeJACKSON, 16CA9 26

NOTICE TO COUNSEL Pursuant to Local Rule No. 14, this documen t constitutes a final j udgment entry and the time period for further appeal commences from the date of filing with the clerk.