State v. Butts, 2022 Ohio 1322

Brian L. Butts pleaded guilty in two Cuyahoga County cases (violent offenses) and elected community-control sanctions at a community-based correctional facility (CBCF) instead of immediate prison.
The court imposed two-year community-control terms with conditions and warned that unsuccessful CBCF termination would trigger a 5–7.5 year prison term under the Reagan Tokes Law.
Butts was terminated from the CBCF for alleged theft and assault; at the violation hearing he waived probable-cause and admitted he violated community-control by failing to complete the program, while denying the underlying conduct.
The trial court revoked community control, imposed concurrent prison terms including a 5–7.5 year Reagan Tokes sentence for the felonious-assault count, and specified postrelease control.
Butts appealed, raising (1) due-process defects at the violation hearing, (2) that a prosecutor must be present, and (3) that the Reagan Tokes statute is unconstitutional; the appeals court affirmed and remanded to correct a clerical error in the journal entry.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Due process at revocation hearing	State: revocation proper; admission sufficient; procedural rights provided	Butts: court had duty to investigate facts and state needed to introduce substantial evidence before revocation	Court: Admission that CBCF termination violated sanctions sufficed; minimal Gagnon protections satisfied; no due-process violation
Presence of prosecutor at violation hearing	State: prosecutor not required where defendant admitted violation; Heinz only guarantees notice/opportunity to be heard	Butts: prosecutor must be present to prosecute violation	Court: Heinz does not mandate prosecutor presence; not required when admission negates need for state evidence
Constitutionality of Reagan Tokes Law	State: statute is constitutional; Delvallie precedent controls; objection timely at sentencing	Butts: law violates due process, separation of powers, and jury-trial rights	Court: Overruled challenges based on this circuit's en banc Delvallie decision; sentence upheld
Clerical error in journal entry (sentencing range)	Court/State: journal entry misstated maximum; must reflect 5–7.5 year range	Butts: N/A (requested correction on appeal)	Court: Affirmed judgment but remanded to correct clerical error in April 27, 2021 entry

Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973) (establishes minimal due-process rights at probation/parole revocation hearings)
State v. Brooks, 103 Ohio St.3d 134 (2004) (trial court has wide sentencing discretion after revocation)
State v. Heinz, 146 Ohio St.3d 374 (2016) (prosecutor is a party entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard at violation proceedings)
State v. Murphy, 91 Ohio St.3d 516 (2001) (plain-error review principles in criminal appeals)
State v. Awan, 22 Ohio St.3d 120 (1986) (constitutional challenges to statutes must generally be raised at first opportunity)
State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (1978) (plain-error standard and limited notice for appellate review)
State ex rel. Cruzado v. Zaleski, 111 Ohio St.3d 353 (2006) (trial court retains jurisdiction to correct clerical mistakes in judgments)