State v. Byrd, 2022 Ohio 1168

Defendant-appellant Marqus Byrd pleaded guilty in two Cuyahoga County cases to multiple offenses, including attempted aggravated burglary (qualifying felony), unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, weapons offenses, endangering children, criminal damaging, and child enticement.
On the attempted aggravated burglary count the trial court imposed an indefinite Reagan Tokes sentence: minimum 3 years, maximum 4.5 years; other counts were sentenced to specified terms and ordered concurrent, yielding a total of 3 to 4.5 years.
Byrd challenged the Reagan Tokes indefinite sentence as unconstitutional, arguing violations of the Sixth Amendment (jury trial), separation-of-powers, and due process.
The appellate court, relying on its en banc decision in State v. Delvallie, rejected Byrd’s constitutional challenges and affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
The opinion notes (footnote) precedent limiting the scope of direct appeals on sentencing when specific issues to the imposed sentence are not preserved (citing Ohio Supreme Court authority).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sixth Amendment — right to jury trial	Reagan Tokes is constitutional; defendant’s challenge fails	Indefinite sentence allows judge to extend term based on facts not found by a jury, violating Sixth Amendment	Overruled — court rejected the Sixth Amendment challenge (following Delvallie)
Separation of powers	Legislature validly enacted Reagan Tokes; sentencing process lawful	Statute unlawfully shifts judicial/constitutional functions and infringes separation of powers	Overruled — court upheld statute against separation‑of‑powers claim
Due process	Procedures under Reagan Tokes provide adequate protections	Indeterminate extension window lacks required due process safeguards	Overruled — court found no due process violation
Scope of appeal / preservation	Appellate precedent limits direct challenges to sentence validity when not properly raised	Byrd raised constitutional challenge to statute on appeal	Court resolved constitutional challenge against Byrd but noted precedent (Harper, Henderson) restricting direct review of unpreserved sentencing defects

State v. Harper, 160 Ohio St.3d 480, 159 N.E.3d 248 (Ohio 2020) (holds limits on direct appeal review of sentence validity when not properly raised)
State v. Henderson, 161 Ohio St.3d 285, 162 N.E.3d 776 (Ohio 2020) (addresses scope of appellate review for sentencing issues not preserved)
State v. Davis, 119 Ohio St.3d 422, 894 N.E.2d 1221 (Ohio 2008) (procedural rules and limits on sentencing claims on direct appeal)
State v. Murnahan, 63 Ohio St.3d 60, 584 N.E.2d 1204 (Ohio 1992) (standards governing challenges to sentences on appeal)