State v. Ratliff, 190 N.E.3d 684

Guernsey County indictment (Nov. 25, 2020): one count aggravated possession of drugs (first-degree felony). Defendant David Ratliff pleaded no contest on June 11, 2021.
Trial court imposed an indefinite sentence: mandatory minimum 7 years, maximum 10.5 years; court waived mandatory fine and suspended driver's license for five years; ordered court costs to be paid.
Ratliff appealed, raising (1) constitutional challenges to the Reagan Tokes Act (due process, jury-trial, separation of powers, equal protection) and (2) ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to move to waive court costs at sentencing.
The court summarized Reagan Tokes: judges impose minimum and maximum terms; DRC may, after specified hearings, rebut a statutory presumption of release and extend incarceration up to the court-imposed maximum.
The court held Reagan Tokes constitutional (no violation of due process, separation of powers, jury-trial right, or equal protection) and rejected the ineffective-assistance claim because Ratliff could not show a reasonable probability the court would have waived costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Constitutionality of Reagan Tokes (overarching)	Reagan Tokes violates jury trial, separation of powers, due process, and equal protection.	Statute is presumptively constitutional; provides notice, hearings, and limits (DRC cannot exceed judicial maximum).	Court: statute constitutional; challenge overruled.
Due process / liberty interest	Creates a liberty interest but lacks adequate process for revocation/extension.	Creates a presumption of release but affords hearings, notice, and procedures analogous to parole/disciplinary processes satisfying minimal due process.	Court: procedures satisfy due process (citing Greenholtz/Swarthout/Wolff).
Right to jury trial (Apprendi/Alleyne argument)	DRC fact-finding to extend term increases punishment and requires jury findings beyond a reasonable doubt.	DRC may not exceed judicial maximum; extensions stem from disciplinary/parole-like proceedings, not new criminal elements.	Court: no Sixth Amendment violation; Apprendi/Alleyne inapplicable.
Ineffective assistance — waiver of court costs	Counsel failed to move to waive court costs despite Ratliff's indigency.	Trial court had already found indigency, waived fine and counsel fees; no reasonable probability costs would be waived.	Court: no prejudice shown; ineffective-assistance claim fails.

Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684 (legislature defines crimes and penalties)
Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 (sentencing limited by statute)
Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal & Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1 (minimal parole due-process protections: opportunity to be heard and statement of reasons)
Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216 (federal due process in parole contexts requires only minimal procedures)
Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (prison disciplinary proceedings require limited procedural protections)
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (deference to prison administrators; limits on applying open-society procedural norms in prisons)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (facts increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury)
Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (facts that increase mandatory minimums are elements for the jury)
Woods v. Telb, 733 N.E.2d 1103 (Ohio Supreme Court discussion of parole/indeterminate sentences and executive discretion)
State v. Davis, 146 N.E.3d 560 (Ohio Supreme Court on ineffective-assistance inquiry for failing to request waiver of costs)