State v. T.B., 2021 Ohio 2104

T.B. pleaded guilty pursuant to an agreed sentencing range after being charged with multiple sexual offenses; an earlier plea and sentence were vacated on appeal and case remanded.
On remand T.B. pleaded guilty to multiple counts (rapes, pandering, gross sexual imposition, assaults) with an agreed aggregate sentencing range and was sentenced to an aggregate 25-year term with consecutive sentences on three counts.
The trial court made the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) consecutive-sentence findings and imposed postrelease control, jail credit, and sex-offender classifications.
On appeal T.B. raised three issues: (1) R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) is unconstitutional as violating due process by barring appellate review of jointly recommended sentences; (2) the consecutive-sentence findings are not supported by the record (sentence disproportionate); and (3) the trial court committed plain error by failing to merge allied offenses for sentencing.
The court concluded T.B. knowingly and voluntarily agreed to the joint sentence range, R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) bars review of an agreed, law‑authorized sentence, and T.B. waived allied-offense challenges by agreeing the offenses were not allied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (T.B.)	Held
Whether R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) violates due process by barring appellate review of jointly recommended sentences	Statute is valid; defendants may waive appellate review by agreeing to a joint sentence; no constitutional right to an appeal	Statute denies due process by preventing appellate review of factual findings supporting a sentence	Rejected — no due process violation; defendant knowingly waived appellate challenge by agreeing to joint sentence range
Whether the consecutive sentences are unsupported/ disproportionate	The sentence was jointly recommended, within the agreed range, and authorized by law so not reviewable under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1)	The 25‑year aggregate term is disproportionately long and the record does not support consecutive findings	Rejected — sentence was within agreed, law‑authorized range and thus not reviewable
Whether the trial court erred by not merging allied offenses for sentencing	Parties agreed offenses were not allied; thus issue was waived on the record	Many convictions arose from same conduct/victim and should have merged under Underwood	Rejected — defendant waived allied‑offense challenge by agreeing offenses were not allied

Ross v. Moffitt, 417 U.S. 600 (states are not required to provide appellate review as a matter of constitutional right)
McKane v. Durston, 153 U.S. 684 (no absolute constitutional right to appeal)
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (due process requires opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and manner)
State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89 (Ohio does not guarantee a criminal defendant a right to appeal)
State ex rel. Bryant v. Akron Metro. Park Dist., 281 U.S. 74 (right of appeal not essential to due process if trial-level due process provided)
State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365 (test for when a sentence is "authorized by law" and reviewability of allied-offense issues)
State v. Reddick, 72 Ohio St.3d 88 (procedural-appellate requirements do not necessarily violate due process)
United States v. Smith, 344 F.3d 479 (waiver of appellate review in a valid plea agreement is enforceable)