State v. Dowdell, 2022 Ohio 2956

Background

James Dowdell was indicted on multiple drug- and weapon-related felonies; by plea he admitted to one amended first-degree drug-trafficking count with a one-year firearm specification and certain forfeiture specifications; other counts/specs were nolled or dismissed.
The parties entered a negotiated plea recommending an agreed, definite six-year prison term.
At the plea hearing the trial court stated it had previously found the minimum indefinite-term provisions of the Reagan Tokes Law (S.B. 201) unconstitutional, and the court imposed the agreed six-year definite sentence (with the one-year firearm term consecutive).
The state appealed, arguing the trial court erred by treating S.B. 201 as unconstitutional and by failing to impose an indefinite Reagan Tokes sentence, making the sentence contrary to law under R.C. 2953.08(B)(2).
The majority of the appellate panel reversed and remanded for resentencing under the Reagan Tokes Law, relying on this court’s en banc decision in State v. Delvallie holding S.B. 201 not unconstitutional in the district.
A dissent argued the state forfeited the challenge by agreeing to the joint six-year sentence, and the court should not invoke plain-error review to undo a jointly recommended term.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by finding Reagan Tokes Law unconstitutional and refusing to impose an indefinite sentence	Trial: S.B. 201 is constitutional per Delvallie; mandatory indefinite term must be imposed; failing to do so is contrary to law	Dowdell: Court previously declared minimum indefinite provisions unconstitutional; proceeded on agreed six-year term; state forfeited challenge	Reversed: Court held Reagan Tokes Law is not unconstitutional in this district and the trial court erred by not imposing an indefinite sentence; remanded for resentencing
Whether a sentence that omits a mandatory statutory component is reviewable on appeal	Trial: Omission of a mandatory statutory sentence element makes sentence contrary to law and appealable under R.C. 2953.08(B)(2)	Dowdell: No express objection; sentence jointly recommended — state forfeited right to challenge	Held: A sentence contrary to law is reviewable; plain-error review may be invoked to correct such errors
Whether the state forfeited its right to challenge the sentence by agreeing to a joint recommendation	Trial: State may still appeal sentences contrary to law despite plea agreement	Dowdell: Jointly recommended sentence and lack of objection amount to forfeiture; reversal would be inequitable	Held: Majority did not treat the plea agreement as forfeiture; reversed. Dissent would find forfeiture and decline plain-error relief
Remedy after finding trial court erred	Trial: Remand for resentencing consistent with Reagan Tokes (indefinite term imposed)	Dowdell: Preserve the agreed definite term; avoid remand	Held: Remanded for resentencing under the Reagan Tokes Law

Key Cases Cited

State v. Delvallie, 185 N.E.3d 536 (8th Dist. 2022) (this court held Reagan Tokes Law not unconstitutional in the district)
State v. Underwood, 922 N.E.2d 923 (Ohio 2010) (sentence that fails to impose a mandatory provision is contrary to law)
State v. Perry, 802 N.E.2d 643 (Ohio 2004) (appellate holdings should encourage parties to raise errors in trial court)
State v. Barnes, 759 N.E.2d 1240 (Ohio 2001) (plain-error rule should be invoked with utmost caution)
State v. Rogers, 38 N.E.3d 860 (Ohio 2015) (appellate courts have discretion whether to notice plain error)
State v. Long, 372 N.E.2d 804 (Ohio 1978) (plain-error standard and exceptional-circumstance guidance)
State v. Quarterman, 19 N.E.3d 900 (Ohio 2014) (burden of demonstrating plain error on party asserting it)
State v. Payne, 873 N.E.2d 306 (Ohio 2007) (plain-error burden and analysis)
In re M.D., 527 N.E.2d 286 (Ohio 1988) (forfeited constitutional challenges may be reviewed where rights warrant it)