State v. Bentley, 2022 Ohio 1914

Appellant Scottie Bentley was indicted for aggravated drug possession (second-degree felony); a suppression motion was denied and he pleaded guilty on August 5, 2021.
At plea/sentencing the court imposed an indefinite (Reagan Tokes) prison term of 4–6 years, mandatory post-release control up to three years, court costs, and DNA testing.
The trial court discussed R.C. 2929.11/2929.12/2929.13 and advised Bentley about post-release control, but did not provide the full R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) statutory notifications concerning the rebuttable presumption and DRC’s authority under R.C. 2967.271.
Bentley appealed asserting (1) the Reagan Tokes Act is unconstitutional (separation of powers and due process) and (2) the court failed to comply with R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c).
The State conceded the sentencing court omitted some required R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) notifications.
The Fourth District vacated Bentley’s sentence and remanded for resentencing because the omitted R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) notices rendered the sentence contrary to law; the court deemed the Reagan Tokes constitutional challenge moot given the remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Reagan Tokes Act is unconstitutional	State did not press the constitutional issue on appeal (or argued it need not be reached)	Bentley: Act violates separation of powers and procedural due process	Moot on appeal — court declined to decide due to remand for resentencing
Whether trial court complied with R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) notifications at sentencing	State conceded the court failed to give all required R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) notices	Bentley: court erred by omitting required notifications, making sentence contrary to law	Sustained — omission makes sentence contrary to law; sentence vacated and case remanded for resentencing

Hayslip v. Hanshaw, 54 N.E.3d 1272 (4th Dist. 2016) (de novo review applies to constitutional questions)