State v. Greene, 2022 Ohio 4536

In 2020 Greene was indicted for murder, felonious assault, and weapons under disability; he agreed to plead to voluntary manslaughter with a firearms specification and the weapons-under-disability count in exchange for a recommended 17-year prison term.
The trial court accepted the plea and imposed the agreed 17-year sentence with a 22½-year maximum under the Reagan Tokes Law (an indefinite non‑life felony term).
Greene’s signed plea entry included the R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) Reagan Tokes notifications, but the trial court did not orally recite all five notifications at the sentencing hearing.
Greene appealed, arguing (1) the court failed to orally provide the R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) notifications, (2) R.C. 2967.271 (the Reagan Tokes hearing provision) is unconstitutionally vague, and (3) the Reagan Tokes Law is otherwise unconstitutional.
The state conceded the sentencing‑notification error; the court also considered and rejected Greene’s facial constitutional challenges, relying on its prior reasoning in State v. Guyton.
The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded solely for resentencing so the trial court can orally comply with R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court was required to orally recite the five R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) Reagan Tokes notifications at sentencing	State: oral recitation is required by statute; failure requires remand (state conceded).	Greene: trial court failed to orally provide the notifications despite inclusion in plea entry.	Court: Mandatory; failure to orally notify renders sentence contrary to law — remand for resentencing to comply with R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c).
Whether R.C. 2967.271 (the ODRC hearing/rebuttal provision) is unconstitutionally vague	State: statute and administrative processes provide required standards and process.	Greene: the hearing provision is vague and lacks required procedural safeguards.	Court: Rejected vagueness challenge; relied on Guyton reasoning that ODRC and statutory framework supply adequate process.
Whether Reagan Tokes Law is facially unconstitutional (separation of powers, due process, equal protection)	State: law is constitutional; administrative procedures and statutory scheme preserve protections.	Greene: law violates constitutional provisions generally (procedural due process, vagueness).	Court: Rejected facial constitutional challenges, consistent with State v. Guyton; constitutional issues currently under review by Ohio Supreme Court in related appeals.

State v. Jordan, 817 N.E.2d 864 (Ohio 2004) (failure to give statutorily‑mandated sentencing notifications renders sentence contrary to law)
State v. Hacker, 161 N.E.3d 112 (3d Dist.) (appellate decision addressing Reagan Tokes; appeal allowed by Ohio Supreme Court)
State v. Simmons, 169 N.E.3d 728 (8th Dist.) (appellate decision addressing Reagan Tokes; appeal allowed by Ohio Supreme Court)