State v. Duckett, 2021 Ohio 3110

In April 2016 Duckett pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated drug trafficking (4th-degree felonies) and one count of trafficking in heroin (5th-degree) and received a five-year community-control sanction with substance-abuse–focused conditions (treatment, assessments, sobriety, reporting, drug testing).
In March 2019 Duckett tested positive for methamphetamine; he admitted the violation and the court continued community control with additional, stricter conditions (including compliance with probation rules, reporting, and I-Samson testing).
From December 2019 to February 2020 Duckett failed to report to probation, failed to call I‑Samson, and failed to report for drug testing; he admitted all three violations at the revocation hearing.
The parties jointly recommended a 24-month aggregate prison term; the trial court warned that accepting a joint recommendation waives appeal rights and then imposed the joint 24‑month sentence with 199 days’ credit.
On appeal Duckett argued (1) ineffective assistance because counsel agreed to an unauthorized sentence (he contended the violations were "technical" and thus capped at 180 days), and (2) plain error in assessing numerous $5 "special project" fees in the clerk’s itemized bill.
The appellate court affirmed the 24‑month sentence (finding the violations nontechnical and the joint sentence authorized) but sustained error as to the special project fees and remanded to correct court costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for jointly recommending 24 months because violations were "technical" and capped at 180 days	State: Violations were nontechnical (substantive rehabilitative conditions tied to drug misconduct); joint sentence authorized by law	Duckett: Failures to report/call/test were routine administrative conditions; therefore technical and capped at 180 days; counsel incompetent for agreeing to unauthorized sentence	Court: Violations were nontechnical under Nelson/Castner; 24‑month joint sentence authorized; R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) bars review; no ineffective‑assistance relief (assignment overruled)
Whether the clerk properly assessed multiple $5 "special project" fees	State: Multiple fees supported by separate counts/actions or filings	Duckett: Local Rule 13 does not authorize separate $25 special‑project charges per criminal filing; R.C. 2303.20 lists clerk fees and contains no special project item	Court: R.C. 2303.20 does not authorize the charged special‑project fees; Local Rule 13 does not create a separate charge; the extra $70 was improperly assessed — assignment sustained and costs corrected on remand

State v. Nelson, 165 N.E.3d 1110 (Ohio 2020) (explains "technical" vs. "nontechnical" community-control violations; look to whether condition is tailored to rehabilitative goals)
State v. Castner, 167 N.E.3d 939 (Ohio 2020) (applies Nelson to hold program‑tailored conditions are nontechnical)
State v. Howard, 165 N.E.3d 1088 (Ohio 2020) (trial court meets R.C. 2929.19(B)(4) notice requirement by informing defendant at initial sentencing of specific prison term for community-control violation)
State v. Underwood, 922 N.E.2d 923 (Ohio 2010) (a jointly recommended sentence that comports with mandatory sentencing provisions is "authorized by law" and not reviewable under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1))
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (ineffective-assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)