State v. Fowler, 2022 Ohio 3499

July 2019 motorcycle crash: D.S. died and appellant Andru Fowler lost an arm; Fowler was indicted for aggravated vehicular homicide (third-degree felony).
Fowler pleaded no contest to reduced charge of vehicular homicide (negligence-based, fourth-degree felony).
At sentencing the prosecutor argued Fowler acted recklessly, introduced a nurse’s affidavit (who did not witness the crash) and referenced Fowler’s post-crash social media posts; sought the 18‑month statutory maximum.
The trial judge introduced additional, out-of-record facts he learned from his wife (her impressions of the motorcycle’s engine pitch and speed) and stated the crash was predictable and probable.
Fowler and his counsel were not given an opportunity to respond to the judge’s wife-derived observations before the court imposed the 18‑month sentence.
The court of appeals vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing, holding the trial court relied on impermissible outside information and violated Fowler’s right of allocution.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Fowler’s 18‑month sentence was "contrary to law" because the trial court relied on out-of-record information and treated the offense as reckless rather than negligent	Fowler: trial court relied on information outside the record (judge’s wife), which is impermissible, and thus the sentence is contrary to law	State: sentence within statutory range; appellate review limited by R.C. 2953.08(G); record incomplete; presumption of regularity; bias claim forfeited	Court: sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law because court relied on out-of-record facts and violated allocution; vacated and remanded for resentencing
Whether appellate jurisdiction or an abuse-of-discretion standard should be applied to review excessive sentences	Fowler: appellate review under state constitution and due process should permit abuse-of-discretion review	State: argues statutory standard controls and jurisdictional limits apply	Court: moot (resentencing ordered), so issue not decided

State v. Jones, 169 N.E.3d 649 (Ohio 2020) (interpreting "otherwise contrary to law" in R.C. 2953.08 review)
State v. Kalish, 896 N.E.2d 124 (Ohio 2008) (framework for appellate review of felony sentences)
State v. Green, 738 N.E.2d 1208 (Ohio 2000) (defendant’s absolute right of allocution at sentencing)
State v. Brown, 850 N.E.2d 116 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006) (allocution includes chance to respond after court receives new information)
State v. Yates, 958 N.E.2d 640 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011) (sentencing court’s introduction of new information can violate allocution and warrant resentencing)
Beer v. Griffith, 377 N.E.2d 775 (Ohio 1978) (appellate courts lack authority to decide judicial-disqualification claims)