State v. Roberts, 2020 Ohio 3391

Defendant Andre J. Roberts was indicted on 35 drug-related counts and a forfeiture specification seeking $4,150 in U.S. currency.
On November 13, 2017 Roberts pled guilty to six counts of trafficking in heroin (three fourth-degree, three fifth-degree felonies) and agreed to forfeit $4,150; remaining counts were dismissed.
On December 7, 2017 the court sentenced Roberts to 12 months on each fourth-degree count and 10 months on each fifth-degree count, ordered to run consecutively for a total of 66 months.
Appellate history: untimely notice -> motion for delayed appeal granted; multiple counsel/Anders filings; record supplementation ordered to include plea/hearing transcript.
Roberts raised three assignments of error on appeal: (1) forfeiture not supported/statutorily deficient; (2) sentence excessive; (3) consecutive sentences unsupported.
The trial court explained it considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 factors, found the defendant had an extensive criminal history, was on post-release control when offenses occurred, and concluded consecutive terms were necessary and not disproportionate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of forfeiture specification / forfeiture of $4,150	Indictment satisfied R.C. 2941.1417 form/location; Roberts expressly agreed in plea to forfeit the currency, so forfeiture was effectuated by plea	Forfeiture statutory requirements not met; record does not support forfeiture	Court: Overruled — specification met form/location requirements and forfeiture was effected by plea agreement
Excessive sentence	Sentence within statutory range; court considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 factors and PSI; imprisonment appropriate given history and heroin sales	Sentence is excessive	Court: Overruled — sentence not contrary to law; court considered required factors
Consecutive sentences	Court made R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings (necessary to protect public/punish; not disproportionate; defendant’s history/post-release-control supports consecutive terms)	Consecutive sentences unsupported by the record	Court: Overruled — record supports the required consecutive-sentencing findings

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedure for appointed counsel to withdraw when appeal is frivolous)
State v. Bolton, 97 N.E.3d 37 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017) (overview of R.C. Chapter 2981 forfeiture concepts)
State v. Davis, 886 N.E.2d 916 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008) (forfeiture can be effectuated by plea agreement)
State v. Marcum, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (Ohio 2016) (standard under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) for appellate review of sentences)