State v. Hodgkin, 2021 Ohio 1353

Phillip Hodgkin was indicted for aggravated robbery and theft from a person in a protected class (with firearm specs and a weapons-under-disability count); plea negotiations eliminated the firearm specs and the disability count.
At a June 11, 2020 plea hearing Hodgkin acknowledged the Reagan Tokes framework (minimum/maximum and possible ODRC review) and pled guilty to amended robbery (second-degree) and theft from a protected class.
The trial court merged counts, elected to proceed on robbery, and on July 29, 2020 sentenced Hodgkin to an indefinite term of six to nine years under the Reagan Tokes Law.
Hodgkin appealed raising three assignments of error: (1) R.C. 2967.271 (Reagan Tokes) is unconstitutional; (2) trial counsel was ineffective for not challenging the statute; (3) the trial court failed to give the mandatory R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) notifications at sentencing, violating due process.
The appellate court: overruled assignments 1 and 2 (constitutional challenge forfeited; counsel not ineffective), but sustained assignment 3, holding the sentencing court failed to provide the required statutory notifications at the sentencing hearing and remanded for resentencing solely to comply with R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Hodgkin)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
1. Is the Reagan Tokes indefinite-sentencing statute (R.C. 2967.271) constitutional / ripe for review on direct appeal?	The statute is unconstitutional under state and federal constitutions.	The challenge is not ripe because Hodgkin has not yet served his minimum term / ODRC has not acted.	Court: Issue forfeited (not raised in trial court); assignment overruled.
2. Was counsel ineffective for failing to challenge Reagan Tokes?	Counsel performed deficiently by not raising the constitutional challenge, causing prejudice.	Counsel was not ineffective; statutes are presumed constitutional and appellate precedent disfavors the challenge.	Court: No Strickland relief — performance and prejudice not shown; assignment overruled.
3. Did the trial court violate sentencing statutes / due process by failing to give mandatory R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) notifications at the sentencing hearing?	The court did not provide the required five notifications at the sentencing hearing, so the sentence is defective.	The trial court's journal entry contained notifications and plea hearing referenced aspects; sentencing compliance was sufficient.	Court: Sentencing hearing lacked the mandatory notifications; sentence reversed in part and remanded for resentencing limited to providing R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) notices.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes two-prong ineffective-assistance standard).
State v. Lowe, 112 Ohio St.3d 507 (2007) (statutes are presumed constitutional).
State v. Cook, 83 Ohio St.3d 404 (1998) (reiterating presumption of constitutionality).
State v. Mundt, 115 Ohio St.3d 22 (2007) (discusses Strickland standards in Ohio).