State v. Durand, 2022 Ohio 1059

Durand was charged with aggravated murder, murder, aggravated robbery, and felonious assault; each count included a firearm specification.
She pled guilty to first-degree involuntary manslaughter (R.C. 2903.04(A)) with a three-year firearm specification and to first-degree aggravated robbery (R.C. 2911.01(A)(1)); other counts were dismissed.
As part of the plea, Durand agreed to testify against any codefendants who went to trial.
The trial court imposed consecutive three-year firearm specification followed by concurrent ten-year terms for manslaughter and aggravated robbery; under the Reagan Tokes Law the aggregate sentence was a minimum of 13 years and a maximum of 18 years.
Durand appealed, arguing (1) the sentence violated R.C. 2929.11 and the purposes/principles of felony sentencing and (2) the Reagan Tokes Law is unconstitutional (Sixth Amendment, separation of powers, due process).
The Eighth District affirmed: it found the trial court properly considered sentencing statutes and, following its en banc precedent, rejected the constitutional challenge to Reagan Tokes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sentence was imposed contrary to R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 (purposes/principles of felony sentencing)	The trial court considered required factors (noting review of the presentence investigation) and its journal entry states it considered all required factors of law.	Durand contends the court failed to consider her lack of prior criminal record and other mitigating recidivism factors.	Court presumed statutory factors were considered; trial court’s PSR review and entry suffice. Assignment overruled.
Whether the Reagan Tokes Law is unconstitutional (Sixth Amendment, separation of powers, due process)	The State defends the statute’s validity and relies on controlling precedent.	Durand argues the law infringes the right to jury trial, violates separation of powers, and denies due process.	Rejected: court overruled the constitutional challenge pursuant to the court’s en banc decision in Delvallie. Assignment overruled.

State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242 (Ohio 2020) (appellate courts cannot modify a sentence under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) based solely on alleged failures to follow R.C. 2929.11/2929.12).
State v. Wilson, 129 Ohio St.3d 214 (Ohio 2011) (trial courts must consider but need not state specific findings for R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 factors).
State v. Arnett, 88 Ohio St.3d 208 (Ohio 2000) (same principle that courts need not make detailed on-the-record findings of consideration for sentencing statutes).