State v. Reynolds, 2022 Ohio 4690

James Reynolds was indicted on escape (felony 3), domestic violence (felony 4), and vandalism; he pleaded guilty under a negotiated plea in May 2022 with amended counts and restitution agreed.
The State amended counts: attempted escape (felony 4), domestic violence (misdemeanor), and dismissed vandalism; court accepted pleas and ordered a PSI.
At sentencing the court imposed a 17-month prison term (Count One) and a 180-day jail term (Count Two, credited as time served), found Reynolds had 398 days remaining on post‑release control, terminated that PRC term, and imposed the 398 days as a judicial sanction to run consecutively with the 17‑month sentence.
Reynolds appealed, arguing the trial court denied due process by relying on a letter from his parole officer (not in the appellate record) to calculate the post‑release‑control sanction and that there was an 80‑day discrepancy in credit.
The State attached a document to its brief explaining the 80‑day issue, but the appellate court refused to consider it because appendices are not part of the record on appeal; the court also found the PSI reflected 398 days remaining.
The appellate court held Reynolds forfeited a due‑process challenge by not objecting at sentencing, failed to brief a due‑process claim adequately, declined to craft a plain‑error argument for him, and affirmed the trial court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court denied due process by imposing a judicial sanction under R.C. 2929.141 using materials outside the record	The State: sanction calculation is supported by the PSI; court may consider information presented at sentencing if approved; the appendix the State filed on appeal is not part of the record and cannot be considered	Reynolds: trial court relied on a parole‑officer letter outside the record to calculate PRC days and thus denied due process; there is an 80‑day credit discrepancy	Court: Reynolds forfeited the claim by not objecting at sentencing and failed to brief a due‑process argument; the appellate court will not consider the appendix; PSI supports the 398‑day sanction; judgment affirmed

State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (Ohio 2016) (standard for appellate review of felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08)
Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (Ohio 1954) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (Ohio 1978) (plain‑error rule in criminal cases)
State v. Payne, 114 Ohio St.3d 502 (Ohio 2007) (forfeiture of issues not raised at trial)
State v. Ishmail, 54 Ohio St.2d 402 (Ohio 1978) (appellate courts cannot add matter to the record)
State ex rel. Municipal Construction Equipment Operators’ Labor Council v. Cleveland, 162 Ohio St.3d 195 (Ohio 2020) (reviewing court may not add matters not part of the trial record)
State ex rel. Montgomery Cty. Pub. Defender v. Siroki, 108 Ohio St.3d 207 (Ohio 2006) (same principle regarding the appellate record)
State ex rel. Duncan v. Chippewa Twp. Trustees, 73 Ohio St.3d 728 (Ohio 1995) (prohibiting courts from deciding appeals based on matter outside the record)