State v. Brown Suber, 2021 Ohio 2291

Appellant Donny Brown Suber was indicted on nine felony narcotics and weapons counts; plea deal: pleaded guilty to two counts of first-degree possession of heroin and accompanying forfeiture specifications; major-drug specifications and other charges dismissed.
The trial court conducted a combined plea/sentencing hearing, during which it advised Suber about the Reagan Tokes Law (indefinite sentences) and the possible DRC-administered extension of up to five years.
Suber waived a presentence investigation; the court imposed mandatory indefinite terms of 10–15 years on each count, ordered to run concurrently, waived fines, and imposed five years of postrelease control.
Suber appealed, raising two assignments of error: (1) that Ohio’s indefinite sentencing scheme (R.C. 2967.271) is unconstitutional, and (2) that the court failed to provide required notifications under R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) when imposing a non-life felony indefinite term.
The appellate court found the constitutional challenge forfeited for failure to raise it below, but found reversible error because the trial court omitted several of the five mandatory notifications required by R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c); it affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for the limited purpose of providing those notifications.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Suber may challenge the constitutionality of Ohio's indefinite sentencing statute	Suber argued R.C. 2967.271 is unconstitutional because DRC's power to extend incarceration up to five years violates due process	State argued the issue was forfeited because Suber did not raise it in the trial court	Court held the constitutional challenge was forfeited for failure to raise it at trial and overruled this assignment of error
Whether the trial court complied with R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) when imposing a non-life felony indefinite term	Suber argued the court failed to provide all five statutory notifications about the presumption of release and DRC's authority under Reagan Tokes	State argued the plea/sentencing colloquy and prior statements satisfied notification requirements and raised R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) procedural bar (inapplicable because sentence was not jointly recommended)	Court held the trial court omitted several required notifications (DRC hearing requirement; DRC may extend beyond minimum and may do so multiple times), reversed the sentence limitedly and remanded only to permit the court to give the statutory notifications; conviction and other sentencing aspects unaffected

State v. Buttery, 162 Ohio St.3d 10 (2020) (constitutional challenges must be raised at first opportunity in the trial court)
State v. Awan, 22 Ohio St.3d 120 (1986) (in criminal cases, a statute's constitutionality ordinarily must be presented to the trial court first)