State v. Guzman, 2022 Ohio 2414

Omar Guzman was indicted on multiple counts arising from a series of armed robberies committed Sept.–Dec. 2020; he pled guilty to multiple aggravated robbery, kidnapping, felonious assault, and weapons-under-disability counts.
The trial court imposed an aggregate indefinite sentence under the Reagan Tokes Law: minimum 24 years, maximum 28½ years.
Guzman appealed, raising (1) that the indefinite sentence is unconstitutional and (2) that the trial court failed to give the mandatory Reagan Tokes advisements required by R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c).
The appellate court affirmed Guzman’s convictions, relying on the court’s en banc decision in State v. Delvallie regarding the constitutionality challenge.
The court found the trial court did not provide the statutorily required advisements at sentencing and therefore vacated the sentence in part and remanded for limited resentencing solely to give the required R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) notifications.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Constitutionality of indefinite Reagan Tokes sentence	State relied on Delvallie to uphold the sentence as constitutional	Guzman argued the indefinite sentence is unconstitutional	Overruled Guzman’s constitutional challenge (court applied Delvallie)
Failure to give R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) advisements at sentencing	State implicitly argued sentencing was proper / adequate	Guzman argued the court failed to provide mandatory Reagan Tokes advisements at the hearing	Court found error, vacated sentence as to advisements, and remanded for limited resentencing to provide the notifications

State v. Delvallie, 185 N.E.3d 536 (8th Dist. 2022) (Eighth District precedent applied to reject constitutional challenge to Reagan Tokes indefinite sentence)
State v. Jones, 169 N.E.3d 649 (Ohio 2020) (explains that R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) limits appellate review to the statutory grounds listed, restricting relief to narrow bases)