State v. Close, 2018 Ohio 2244

Keith A. Close was indicted on multiple drug counts (trafficking and possession of cocaine and marijuana) with forfeiture and major drug offender specifications; plea proceedings followed.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Close pled guilty to an amended Count One (trafficking in cocaine, second-degree felony) and a forfeiture-in-money specification; the State agreed to dismiss other counts and jointly recommend a 5-year prison term.
At the change-of-plea hearing the trial court explicitly informed Close it was not bound by the joint sentencing recommendation and confirmed Close’s understanding and willingness to proceed.
At sentencing the court imposed six years’ imprisonment (within the statutory 2–8 year range for a second-degree felony) and a mandatory fine; the sentencing entry did not mention the forfeiture specification, though the forfeiture order appeared in the plea-acceptance entry.
Close appealed, raising (1) error for failing to include the forfeiture specification in the sentencing judgment entry and (2) that the court imposed a greater sentence than the joint recommendation without adequate support.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Close)	Held
Whether the trial court erred by not including the forfeiture specification in the sentencing judgment entry	Forfeiture need not appear in the sentencing entry because it is not a conviction or part of the sentence	Failure to include forfeiture in the sentencing entry was reversible error	No error: forfeiture need not be included in the sentencing entry (affirmed)
Whether imposing six years (above the 5-year joint recommendation) was improper/against the manifest weight of the evidence	Sentence is within statutory range; court considered R.C. 2929.11–.12 factors and had discretion to impose any lawful term	Court should have followed the joint 5-year recommendation; greater sentence unsupported	No error: six-year term is within statutory range and court adequately considered sentencing factors (affirmed)

State v. Harris, 132 Ohio St.3d 318 (affirming that an order of forfeiture is not a conviction or part of the sentence and need not appear in the criminal sentencing entry)