State v. Allen, 10 N.E.3d 192

Daville D. Allen pled guilty (Dec. 7, 2009) to two crack-cocaine possession offenses, including a first-degree felony with a major-drug-offender specification.
Original sentencing (June 23, 2011) imposed 10 years plus an additional 10-year mandatory term for the major-drug-offender spec (total 20 years) and mandatory fines totaling $17,500; courts later entered disbursement orders directing seized funds to satisfy fines.
This court vacated the June 2011 sentences in a prior appeal and remanded for resentencing (Allen I).
After H.B. No. 86 amended R.C. 2925.11/2929.14 (eliminating differential crack/powder penalties and removing the additional mandatory major-drug-offender term but increasing max first-degree term to 11 years), the trial court resentenced Allen to essentially the same terms as before.
Allen appealed again, arguing (1) resentencing was contrary to law because H.B. No. 86 reduced the penalty and should apply, and (2) the court erred in directing release/application of seized funds to pay fines.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether H.B. No. 86 (amending R.C. 2925.11/2929.14) applies at resentencing after earlier sentence vacated	State: sentencing under pre-H.B. No. 86 law was permissible; major-drug-offender spec remains	Allen: H.B. No. 86 changed only penalty and R.C. 1.58(B) requires resentencing under the amended law	Court held H.B. No. 86 applies; resentencing must follow amended statutes (reducing potential sentence from 20 to 11 years)
Whether trial court properly ordered seized funds released/applied to pay mandatory fines after remand	State: appeal doesn't properly challenge July 2011 disbursement orders; any error is harmless because Allen is not indigent	Allen: funds were wrongfully applied/forfeited without required proceedings and, after remand and waiver of fines, retention/application is inconsistent	Court held disbursement orders tied to vacated sentence were nullities; trial court erred in ordering release/application and must separately resolve forfeiture and indigency/fine obligations

State v. Mathis, 109 Ohio St.3d 54 (2006) (remand for resentencing results in a de novo sentencing hearing)
State v. Kaplowitz, 100 Ohio St.3d 205 (2003) (R.C. 1.58(B) cannot be applied where amendment would alter the nature of the offense or specifications)
State v. Wilson, 129 Ohio St.3d 214 (2011) (vacatur restores the case to the trial docket as if the error had not occurred)
State ex rel. Cline v. Industrial Commission, 136 Ohio St. 33 (1939) (forfeitures and penalties are not favored and must be strictly construed)
State v. Lilliock, 70 Ohio St.2d 23 (1982) (no forfeiture may be ordered unless statutory expression is clear and legislative intent manifest)