State v. Wallace, 2022 Ohio 2352

Justin Wallace was indicted for drug possession with a forfeiture specification and resisting arrest; he pleaded guilty on June 14, 2021.
On August 11, 2021 the trial court sentenced Wallace to an aggregate minimum of 7 mandatory years and an aggregate maximum of 10.5 years, and ordered forfeiture of $1,432.
Wallace appealed, raising three assignments of error: (1) that the Reagan Tokes Act (R.C. §2967.271) is unconstitutional (separation of powers, jury-trial, and due process grounds); (2) ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to challenge the statute; and (3) error in denying his motion to waive the mandatory fine.
The court analyzed constitutional challenges in light of existing precedent about hybrid/indeterminate sentences and prison-release factfinding by the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (DRC).
The trial court denied waiver of the mandatory fine on the ground Wallace failed to prove indigency; the Court of Appeals reviewed that determination for abuse of discretion.
The Fifth District affirmed the trial court on all three assignments of error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Constitutionality of Reagan Tokes Act (jury, separation of powers, due process)	Act is constitutional: judges set min/max within statutory range; DRC cannot exceed court-imposed maximum; DRC fact-finding concerns prison conduct and is parole-like, not new elements	Act violates separation of powers; DRC factfinding can extend incarceration (invades jury/Apprendi/Alleyne protections) and denies due process	Rejected. Court held Act constitutional: no Apprendi/Alleyne violation, no separation-of-powers problem, and due process protections (notice/hearing/administrative rules) are sufficient
Ineffective assistance for not challenging R.C. §2967.271	No prejudice because the statute is constitutional; therefore omission was not prejudicial	Counsel unreasonably failed to raise a meritorious constitutional challenge	Rejected. Because statute is constitutional, Wallace cannot show prejudice under Strickland
Denial of motion to waive mandatory fine	Trial court reasonably exercised discretion and Wallace failed to establish indigency	Wallace argued the court erred in denying waiver of the mandatory fine under R.C. §2929.18(B)(1)	Rejected. Court found no abuse of discretion; burden rests on defendant to prove indigency

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (any fact increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury)
Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) (facts that raise mandatory minimums are elements requiring jury finding)
Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) (minimum procedural protections required in prison disciplinary proceedings)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part ineffective-assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (judicial fact-finding may inform discretion within statutory limits)
State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23, 896 N.E.2d 124 (2008) (trial courts have discretion to impose sentences within statutory range without detailed findings)
Hernandez v. Kelly, 108 Ohio St.3d 395, 844 N.E.2d 301 (2006) (delegation to executive is permissible when sanction is originally imposed by a court)
State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St.3d 21, 817 N.E.2d 864 (2004) (discussing limits on delegation of sentencing authority)
State v. Gipson, 80 Ohio St.3d 626, 687 N.E.2d 750 (1998) (burden on offender to demonstrate indigency to avoid mandatory fine)