State v. Stoffer, 2015 Ohio 352

On Jan. 8, 2014, Alex K. Stoffer was indicted for possession of heroin: 185 heroin capsules discovered during a vehicle inventory search, alleged to equal or exceed 100 but less than 500 unit doses (R.C. 2925.11(C)(6)(d)).
Forensic testing confirmed the capsules contained heroin; total weight of capsule contents was 4.38 grams.
Stoffer moved to dismiss, arguing the statute’s unit-dose/weight distinctions violate due process and equal protection; the motion was denied and the case proceeded to jury trial.
Jury convicted Stoffer of the charged second-degree felony for possession in unit doses; the trial court imposed a mandatory three-year prison term under R.C. 2925.11(C)(6)(d).
On appeal, Stoffer raised two assignments of error: (1) the statute’s unit-dose versus weight scheme is unconstitutional (due process/equal protection); and (2) the mandatory three-year sentence is contrary to law because the court failed to state statutory sentencing considerations on the record.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Stoffer)	Held
Whether R.C. 2925.11(C)(6)(d) violates due process/equal protection by treating unit doses more harshly than equivalent weight	Statutory classification is rationally related to legitimate goal of reducing distribution and abuse; unit doses facilitate wider distribution	The unit-dose/weight distinction is arbitrary and produces unequal penalties for the same physical quantity of heroin	Court upheld statute: rational-basis review applies; legislature may punish unit-dose possession more severely because unit doses facilitate distribution and wider abuse
Whether prosecutorial discretion to charge by unit doses vs. weight is unconstitutional selective enforcement	Prosecutors may choose charges; discretion is constitutional absent proof of impermissible discrimination	Charging variation permits arbitrary/discriminatory enforcement against unit-dose possessors	Court held no evidence of discriminatory enforcement; discretion alone is not unconstitutional
Whether the mandatory 3-year sentence is contrary to law for lack of on-the-record sentencing findings	State: trial court expressly stated it considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 factors at sentencing	Stoffer: court failed to discuss required statutory factors on the record, rendering sentence contrary to law	Court affirmed sentence: sentence within statutory range; court expressly stated it had considered required factors; not contrary to law

Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson, 116 Ohio St.3d 468 (statute has strong presumption of constitutionality; apply rational-basis test absent fundamental rights)
State ex rel. Dickman v. Defenbacher, 164 Ohio St. 142 (legislation will not be declared unconstitutional unless clearly incompatible with the Constitution)
Mominee v. Scherbarth, 28 Ohio St.3d 270 (rational-basis standard: relation to public health, safety, morals, or general welfare)
State v. Lowe, 112 Ohio St.3d 507 (statute survives if reasonably related to legitimate government interest)
United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144 (legislative classifications will be upheld if question is debatable; judicial deference to legislature)
McCrone v. Bank One Corp., 107 Ohio St.3d 272 (equal protection: non-suspect classifications survive if rationally related to legitimate interest)