Jump To

Top Caption Syllabus Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 9, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

State v. Runyon

Ohio Court of Appeals

• Citations: 2026 Ohio 776
• Docket Number: CA2025-03-008

• Judges: Siebert

• Opinion

• Authorities (18)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (27.8K)

• PDF

Syllabus

The trial court did not provide the defendant with the necessary notifications required by R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) regarding the indefinite nature of his sentence, which resulted in reversible error and the matter was remanded for resentencing on this limited issue. WITH DISSENTING OPINION.

Combined Opinion

[Cite as State v. Runyon, 2026-Ohio-776.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

CLINTON COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, :
CASE NO. CA2025-03-008
Appellee, :
OPINION AND
vs. : JUDGMENT ENTRY
3/9/2026
JUSTYN W. RUNYON, :

Appellant. :

:

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM CLINTON COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Case No. CRI 2024-5148

Brian Shidaker, Clinton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Nicholas R. Smith, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Craig A. Newburger, for appellant.

---

OPINION

SIEBERT, J.

{¶ 1} Appellant, Justyn Runyon, appeals the sentence imposed by the Clinton

County Court of Common Pleas following his guilty plea to one count of burglary. Upon

review of the record, we reverse and remand the matter for the limited purpose of
Clinton CA2025-03-008

providing Runyon with the mandatory statutory notifications.

Factual and Procedural Background

{¶ 2} On August 23, 2024, Runyon was indicted on one count of burglary and one

count of theft. The indictment also included a repeat violent specification based on a prior

burglary conviction. Following plea negotiations, Runyon agreed to plead guilty to one

count of burglary. In exchange, the State dismissed both the repeat violent offender

specification and the theft count. The parties further agreed to jointly recommend an

indefinite prison sentence of four to six years.

{¶ 3} At the combined plea and sentencing hearing, the trial court conducted a

Crim.R. 11(C) plea colloquy, during which Runyon acknowledged that he understood his

rights and the consequences of entering a guilty plea. The court accepted the plea and

imposed the jointly recommended sentence. When addressing indefinite sentencing, the

trial court stated:

THE COURT: The parties have jointly recommended that as
to Count I, the Defendant is ordered to serve an indefinite
prison term of not less than four years and not more than six
years. The Court has considered the record as well as any
statements of impact by the victim. After hearing from the
parties and reviewing the full record, the Court independently
finds the joint recommendation is appropriate.

...

As to Count I, burglary, a second-degree felony under
2911.12(A)(2) and (D), as charged under Count I of the
indictment, Defendant is ordered to serve an indefinite prison
term not less than four years and not more than six years, all
of which is not mandatory which shall commence - -

[RUNYON'S COUNSEL]: Is mandatory.

THE COURT: Excuse me. All of which is mandatory which
shall commence immediately.

{¶ 4} Runyon now appeals, raising one assignment of error for review.

-2-
Clinton CA2025-03-008

Assignment of Error: Reagan Tokes Notifications

{¶ 5} In his sole assignment of error, Runyon argues—and the State agrees—

that the trial court erred by imposing an indefinite prison term without providing all of the

mandatory statutory notifications required by R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c)(i)–(v) ("Reagan

Tokes Notifications") during the sentencing hearing.

Jurisdiction to Review Jointly Recommended Sentences

{¶ 6} A felony sentence is reviewed under the standard set forth in R.C.

2953.08(G)(2). State v. Marcum, 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 7; State v. Julious, 2016-Ohio-4822,

¶ 8 (12th Dist.). Under that statute, an appellate court may modify or vacate a sentence

only if it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the trial court's

findings under the relevant sentencing statutes or that the sentence is otherwise contrary

to law. State v. Harp, 2016-Ohio-4921, ¶ 7 (12th Dist.).

{¶ 7} With respect to jointly recommended sentences, this court's jurisdiction to

review is limited. While a defendant may appeal a sentence that is "contrary to law," an

agreed-upon sentence is not reviewable when (1) the defendant and the State jointly

recommend the sentence, (2) the trial court imposes that recommendation, and (3) the

sentence is "authorized by law." R.C. 2953.08(D)(1). When all three conditions are

satisfied, the defendant may not appeal the sentence. State v. Underwood, 2010-Ohio-1,

¶ 16.

{¶ 8} Our dissenting colleague argues this court does not have jurisdiction to

review Runyon's appeal because the trial court's failure to provide Reagan Tokes

Notifications did not render the agreed-upon sentence to be "unauthorized" or the term of

imprisonment "contrary to law." The dissent asserts because this was a jointly

recommended sentence, the trial court did not have to make the prerequisite

determination that Runyon's prison term was "necessary or required," and so it did not

-3-
Clinton CA2025-03-008

have to give Runyon the Reagan Tokes Notifications. R.C. 2929.19(B)(2). We respectfully

disagree with our dissenting colleague.

{¶ 9} First, the trial court did have to determine whether Runyon's prison term

was necessary or required. A jointly recommended sentence is not binding on the trial

court—the trial court may accept, reject, or modify the recommended sentence without

comment. See State ex rel. Duran v. Kelsey, 2005-Ohio-3674, ¶ 6 (holding trial court not

bound and can impose greater sentence on defendant than what was recommended). In

short, it is the sole responsibility of the court to impose a sentence on a defendant. See

R.C. 2929.01(EE) ("Sentence" means the sanction or combination of sanctions imposed

by the sentencing court on an offender who is convicted of or pleads guilty to an offense).

(Emphasis added.) As the trial court noted, Runyon had a prior conviction for a second-

degree burglary felony, and a prison term was "mandatory" (i.e. "required"). Because the

trial court determined Runyon's sentence was required, it was obligated by statute to

make the Reagan Tokes Notifications pursuant to R.C. 2929.19(B)(2).

{¶ 10} Second, in the context of a jointly recommended sentence, the trial court's

failure to notify a defendant of mandatory procedural protections renders the sentence

unauthorized by law and subject to appellate review. This holding is completely consistent

with both Underwood and State v. Sergent, 2016-Ohio-2696, which our colleague

analyzes. In Underwood, the Court clarified that an agreed sentence is "authorized by

law" and therefore not subject to appellate review "only if it comports with all mandatory

sentencing provisions." Id. at ¶ 20. The Court explicitly rejected a narrow interpretation

that would render an agreed sentence "authorized by law" and unreviewable merely

because it fell within the statutory range for the offense. Id. The Court reasoned that

narrow interpretation would incorrectly eliminate appellate review for sentences within the

statutory range, but which did not include other mandatory sentencing provisions, such

-4-
Clinton CA2025-03-008

as requirements related to the imposition of mandatory postrelease control or that certain

sentences be served consecutively. Id.

{¶ 11} Sergent does not contradict Underwood's holding. Sergent held that "[i]f a

jointly recommended sentence includes nonmandatory consecutive sentences and the

trial judge fails to make the consecutive-sentence findings set out in R.C. 2929.14(E)(4),

the sentence is nevertheless "authorized by law," and therefore is not appealable

pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D)(1)." Sergent, at ¶ 30. (Emphasis added.) The Court

reasoned that a judge does not have to independently justify a sentence when it is jointly

recommended, and the court is not required to comply with nonmandatory sentencing

provisions which support such justifications (like those supporting consecutive

sentences). Id. at ¶ 28, citing State v. Porterfield, 2005-Ohio-3095, ¶ 25.

{¶ 12} Thus, in the context of a jointly recommended sentence, an appellate court's

jurisdiction to review the sentence imposed turns on whether the sentencing provision at

issue is mandatory or nonmandatory. If the trial court fails to comport with a mandatory

sentencing provision within the context of a jointly recommended sentence, Underwood

controls—the sentence is not "authorized by law" and therefore it is reviewable on appeal.

But if a trial court fails to comport with a nonmandatory sentencing provision within the

context of a jointly recommended sentence, Sergent controls—the sentence is

nonetheless "authorized by law" and not reviewable on appeal.

{¶ 13} The statute states that if the sentencing court determines at the sentencing

hearing that a prison term is necessary or required, the court shall give the Reagan Tokes

Notifications to the defendant. R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c). This mandate is found in the same

Revised Code section as other requirements found to be mandatory sentencing

provisions. See R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(d), (f) (containing notifications and requirements

related to postrelease control); see also Underwood, 2010-Ohio-1, at ¶ 20 (finding same

-5-
Clinton CA2025-03-008

postrelease control notifications and requirements mandatory sentencing provisions in

previous statutory scheme). Since this court views the Reagan Tokes Notifications as a

mandatory sentencing provision, it has jurisdiction to review whether the trial court failed

to give them to Runyon.

Harmless Error Analysis

{¶ 14} The dissent also contends that even if this court has jurisdiction to review

Runyon's sentence, the trial court committed harmless error when it failed to give Runyon

the Reagan Tokes Notifications at the sentencing hearing. Crim.R. 52(A). Our colleague

asserts the trial court's failure to notify neither impacts the procedural protections provided

to the defendant by operation of law, nor does the failure render any prejudice or jeopardy

to the defendant. Again, we respectfully disagree.

{¶ 15} When jointly recommended sentences are not at issue, this court follows

the reasoning as developed in Underwood, holding that the failure to provide any one of

the required Reagan Tokes Notifications constitutes error by failing to provide notification

of mandatory sentencing provisions, necessitating a remand for the limited purpose of

providing them. State v. Paul, 2021-Ohio-1628, ¶ 22-23 (12th Dist.); State v. Pope, 2022-

Ohio-426, ¶ 23 (12th Dist.). Given the Underwood and Sergent line of cases, this court

finds no reason to reverse course on this question within the context of a jointly

recommended sentence.

{¶ 16} By directing that the sentencing court "shall do all of the following" and

"notify the offender of all of the following," the legislature imposed a mandatory duty on

the trial court to provide all five required notifications. Paul at ¶ 21. Accordingly, when

sentencing an offender to a non-life felony indefinite prison term, the trial court must

advise the offender of each of the five Reagan Tokes Notifications at the sentencing

hearing. State v. Hodgkin, 2021-Ohio-1353, ¶ 24 (12th Dist.). Although a trial court is not

-6-
Clinton CA2025-03-008

required to recite the statutory language verbatim, the record must nevertheless reflect

that each required notification was provided to the defendant at sentencing. State v.

Brown Suber, 2021-Ohio-2291, ¶ 17 (12th Dist.).

{¶ 17} The dissent argues the failure to provide Reagan Tokes Notifications does

not deprive a defendant of a fundamental constitutional right akin to the denial of merger

at issue in Underwood. That is true, but in other plea contexts, a trial court's complete

failure to inform a defendant of nonconstitutional rights does not require the defendant to

show prejudice. State v. Dangler, 2020-Ohio-2765, ¶ 15 (holding no showing of prejudice

required when court completely fails to inform defendant of nonconstitutional rights during

plea colloquy). The same reasoning applies in this context—while the error Runyon

alleges is statutory, rather than constitutional, he alleges the trial court completely failed

to give him the mandatory Reagan Tokes Notifications. This alleged complete failure

eliminates Runyon's need to demonstrate prejudice.

Analysis

{¶ 18} Upon review of the record, we find that the trial court completely failed to

advise Runyon of the required Reagan Tokes Notifications, designed to inform him of

various presumptions and procedures he is due after he completes serving his minimum

sentence. As the specific language of the Reagan Tokes Notifications are not at issue

here, we summarize that the trial court did not inform Runyon that (1) the Department of

Rehabilitation and Correction ("DRC") must conduct a hearing to rebut the presumption

of his release after serving the minimum term; (2) the DRC may consider specified

factors—including his conduct while confined, rehabilitation, threat to society, use of

restricted housing, if any, and security classification—in rebutting that presumption; (3)

the DRC may maintain his incarceration for a period it determines to be reasonable, up

to the six-year maximum term; (4) the DRC may extend his incarceration more than once;

-7-
Clinton CA2025-03-008

and (5) if he has not been released prior to the expiration of his maximum prison term, he

must be released upon expiration of that term. See R.C. 2929.19((B)(2)(c)(i) – (v).

{¶ 19} In light of these omissions, we sustain Runyon's sole assignment of error to

the extent it challenges the trial court's failure to comply with R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c).

Although Runyon agreed to a four-to-six-year prison term as part of his agreement with

the State, that does not mean that he waived the right to receive the required Reagan

Tokes Notifications. Runyon's sentence is reversed and the matter is remanded for the

sole and limited purpose of resentencing in compliance with that statute. See, e.g., Brown

Suber at ¶ 17-18; Paul, 2021-Ohio-1628, at ¶ 22-23; Hodgkin at ¶ 25. This remand does

not affect the validity of Runyon's conviction or any other aspect of the sentence imposed.

Runyon is not entitled to a de novo sentencing hearing; rather, the trial court is directed

only to provide the mandatory notifications required by R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c).

{¶ 20} Judgment reversed and remanded for the sole and limited purpose of

resentencing to ensure compliance with R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c).

M. POWELL, J., concurs.

PIPER, P.J., dissents

PIPER, P.J. dissenting.

{¶ 21} With respect to my colleagues in the majority, I disagree with their finding

that the trial court committed reversible error at Runyon's sentencing by failing to provide

him with the Reagan Tokes Law notifications set forth in R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c)(i-v).

Rather, I would find that the plain language set forth in R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) divests this

court of jurisdiction to rule on that issue. Moreover, even if the plain language of R.C.

2953.08(D)(1) did not apply, which I believe that it does, I would find that Crim.R. 52

requires this court to overrule Runyon's assigned error. This is because, as explained

-8-
Clinton CA2025-03-008

more fully below, Runyon has failed to demonstrate that he suffered any prejudice

resulting from the trial court's omission. Therefore, I dissent with respect.

{¶ 22} On appeal, Runyon argues that this case must be reversed and remanded

to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing so that the court can provide him with the

previously omitted Reagan Tokes Law notifications. However, upon review of the record

in this case, it is clear that Runyon has neglected to present any argument alleging that

the Regan Tokes Law provides him with a fundamental right or constitutional protection

that affects his agreed sentence or otherwise renders his sentence not authorized by law.

Runyon has also neglected to make any argument why the trial court's failure to provide

him with the Reagan Tokes Law notifications should not be disregarded by this court as

harmless error. This is in addition to Runyon's failure to present any argument for why the

trial court's omission constitutes plain error or a deficiency affecting his substantial rights.1

{¶ 23} Believing the case law on this issue left it with no other choice, the State

has conceded Runyon's assignment of error. But this was only because the appellate

courts have been hasty to reverse, with little analysis, particularly with respect to

prejudice, in circumstances where the trial court failed to provide the appellant with the

Reagan Tokes Law notifications at sentencing. See e.g. State v. Hodgkin, 2021-Ohio-

1353, ¶ 24-25 (12th Dist.) (reversing "for the sole purpose of resentencing so that

appellant's sentence complies with R.C. 2929.19[B][2][c]" of the Reagan Tokes Law

because the trial court "failed to inform appellant of the mandatory notifications set forth

in R.C. 2929.19[B][2][c] at the sentencing hearing, and thus, failed to comply with the

statute"). Similarly, my colleagues act with haste to reverse, given the absence of any

case law addressing what impact, if any, such an omission may have on Runyon's jointly

1. Although I appreciate the majority's arguments in response to this dissent's determination that we do not have jurisdiction, none of those arguments were raised in Runyon's brief. -9- Clinton CA2025-03-008

recommended sentence.

R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) Restricts Appellate Review

{¶ 24} Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), a sentence imposed upon a defendant is

not subject to review if (1) the sentence is authorized by law; (2) the parties have jointly

recommended the sentence; and (3) the trial court imposes the sentence that the parties

recommended. The Ohio Supreme Court has expressly concluded, "if the conditions

under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) are established, an appellate court lacks jurisdiction to hear the

appeal." State v. Castro, 2022-Ohio-4327, ¶ 9 (12th Dist.), citing State v. Noling, 2013-

Ohio-1764, ¶ 22. Thus, R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) establishes a "statutory limit" on an appellate

court's ability to consider an appeal from a sentence. State v. Gwynne, 2019-Ohio-4761,

¶ 9, fn. 1.

{¶ 25} My colleagues and I disagree on whether the jointly recommended

sentence imposed by the trial court in this case was authorized by law. This is significant

when considering, if the sentence was authorized by law, the General Assembly's

statutory limit placed upon this court under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) applies, and we are

divested of subject-matter jurisdiction to review Runyon's appeal.

{¶ 26} The majority finds we are not divested of jurisdiction, reasoning that the trial

court's failure to orally notify Runyon of certain indefinite sentencing procedures in the

Reagan Tokes Law rendered his sentence unauthorized by law under R.C.

2953.08(D)(1). In reaching this decision, however, the majority overlooks the context of a

jointly recommended sentence and elevates the information in R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c)(i-v)

to a "right" that must be waived. This is misguided and unsupported by a close

examination of the law.

{¶ 27} The majority also misapplies the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in State v.

Underwood, 2010-Ohio-1, by equating the double jeopardy protections codified in Ohio's

• 10 - Clinton CA2025-03-008

merger statute to a defendant's "right" to receive the Reagan Tokes Law notifications. I

find this incongruent with the guidance found within Underwood and the Supreme Court's

later opinion in State v. Sergent, 2016-Ohio-2696. These cases do not support the

majority's conclusion that the Reagan Tokes Law notifications constitute a “mandatory

sentencing provision," which if absent deprive a defendant of a "mandatory procedural

protection" and renders the sentence unauthorized by law.2

Runyon's Indefinite Sentence was Authorized by Law

{¶ 28} The Reagan Tokes Law establishes a statutory indefinite sentencing

scheme under which defendants convicted of first- and second-degree felonies are

sentenced to a minimum and maximum term, with a presumptive release date set at the

end of the minimum term being imposed upon the defendant. R.C. 2929.14(A); R.C.

2929.144. However, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections ("ODRC")

may conduct a hearing to rebut that presumption and keep the offender in prison for an

additional period not to exceed the maximum term imposed by the sentencing judge. R.C.

2967.271(C).

{¶ 29} Outside the context of a jointly recommended sentence, R.C.

2929.19(B)(2)(c) directs, "if the sentencing court determines at the sentencing hearing

that a prison term is necessary or required," and "if the prison term is a non-life felony

indefinite prison term," the court is to advise the defendant of the five notifications listed

in R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c)(i-v). These five notifications describe the presumption of the

defendant's release after the minimum term, the possibility that ODRC may rebut this

1. The majority asserts its decision to reverse this case and remand for the "limited purpose" of providing Reagan Tokes Law notifications, which has been this court's practice, "follows the reasoning as developed in Underwood." See State v. Paul, 2021-Ohio-1628, ¶ 22-23 (12th Dist.); see also State v. Pope, 2022- Ohio-426, ¶ 23 (12th Dist.). However, Underwood instructs that "sentences that do not comport with mandatory provisions are subject to total resentencing." Underwood at ¶ 20. Setting aside this apparent discrepancy, Underwood is a fundamentally different case where the error affected the defendant's sentence itself, not merely a procedural aspect of the sentencing with no effect on the outcome.
2. 11 - Clinton CA2025-03-008

presumption at a hearing, that upon rebutting the presumption the defendant's

incarceration may be extended beyond the minimum term, that ODRC may make findings

to extend the defendant's incarceration multiple times, and that the defendant must be

released upon the expiration of the maximum prison term if he has not already been

released. Therefore, given their substance, the five notifications set forth in R.C.

2929.19(B)(2)(c)(i-v) are merely informational and do not add to, detract from, or

otherwise affect the procedures substantively provided within R.C. 2967.271. That is to

say, the five notifications set forth in R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c)(i-v) do not confer substantive

rights upon the defendant.

{¶ 30} However, when the parties jointly recommend a sentence to the trial court,

they represent that such an agreed sentence is "appropriate." Underwood, 2010-Ohio-1,

at ¶ 27. Once a defendant stipulates that a particular sentence is justified, the sentencing

judge no longer needs to independently justify the sentence. Sergent, 2016-Ohio-2696,

at ¶ 28. Here, once imposed, Runyon's agreement with the State that the sentence was

appropriate negated the trial court's otherwise independent, reciprocal obligation to

determine whether the sentence is "necessary or required" under R.C. 2929.19(B)(2).

Only when the court has an obligation to independently justify the sentence as "necessary

or required" does a requirement to "notify" under subsection (B)(2)(c) follow.3 Therefore,

these Reagan Tokes Law notifications are not mandatory sentencing provisions that the

trial court has failed to comply with. When the trial court imposed the indefinite sentence

1. R.C. 2929.19 (B)(1) occurs before sentencing is imposed; (B)(2) follows the sentence imposed:

(2) Subject to division (B)(3) of this section, if the sentencing court
determines at the sentencing hearing that a prison term is necessary or
required, the court shall do all the following . . . (Emphasis added.).

Subsection (c)(i-v) then references procedures potentially implemented later by ODRC upon the defendant
only if he or she is not released after serving a minimum term.

• 12 - Clinton CA2025-03-008

that Runyon and the State jointly recommended, the sentence remained authorized by

law, with or without recitation of the information from R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c)(i-v).

{¶ 31} My colleagues indicate that trial courts are not bound to impose agreed

sentences and therefore, because it was possible to impose an entirely different sentence

upon Runyon from that which was agreed upon as appropriate, the trial court had to

determine whether the sentence imposed was "necessary or required" under R.C.

2929.19(B)(2). The majority also relies upon the definition of "sentence" for the

proposition that a sentence is the sole responsibility of the trial court because it is

"imposed by the sentencing court," therefore the court must always determine whether

the sentence is necessary or required. See R.C.2929.01(EE). However, this reasoning

contradicts the Ohio Supreme Court's guidance provided in Underwood and Sergent: the

sentence imposed was the agreed sentence, and the parties justified it as appropriate,

thereby relieving the trial court of any obligation to render its own independent

justification. Underwood at ¶ 27; Sergent at ¶ 28.

Underwood and Sergent

{¶ 32} In Underwood and Sergent, the Ohio Supreme Court examined appeals

from jointly recommended sentences under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1). In both cases, the

claimed error concerned the actual sentence imposed, not collateral advisements or

notifications affecting the sentence. More specifically, in Underwood, the Court

determined that an agreed sentence is subject to review and is reversible if a mandatory

waiver of a constitutional right is not obtained, whereas in Sergent, the Court determined

that a trial court is not required to make statutorily mandated findings before imposing

consecutive sentences where the parties agreed to the sentence being imposed. While

neither case addressed circumstances in which the Reagan Tokes Law notifications were

not delivered by the trial court at the defendant's sentencing hearing, they nevertheless

• 13 - Clinton CA2025-03-008

remain instructive for this case.

Underwood

{¶ 33} The Ohio Supreme Court in Underwood held that R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) did

not bar appellate review of concurrent prison terms imposed for allied offenses of similar

import, despite the sentence being agreed to by the parties. In so doing, the Court applied

Crim.R. 52(B) to find that imposing multiple sentences for allied offenses of similar import

(even if concurrent) is plain error because "a defendant is prejudiced by having more

convictions than are authorized by law." Id. at ¶ 31-32. In reaching this decision, the Court

recognized that "[t]here is nothing in the record that demonstrates that Underwood was

informed that he was agreeing to be convicted of allied offenses, thereby waiving his

constitutional right to be free from double jeopardy." Id. at ¶ 32.

{¶ 34} Unlike in Underwood, Runyon does not argue that the sentence he had

agreed to serve violated a fundamental right or effected his sentence. Nor does Runyon

argue that the trial court's failure to provide him with the Reagan Tokes Law notifications

at his sentencing hearing somehow violated a fundamental right or resulted in a prejudice

with respect to his sentence.4 Too often, courts have disregarded the substance of

Crim.R. 52 and neglected to analyze whether the error was harmless, instead just

dubbing the omitted Reagan Tokes Law notifications "mandatory" in nature, or the

sentence "contrary to law" and reversing. See e.g. Hodgkin, 2021-Ohio-1353, at ¶ 24;

State v. Lawson, 2025-Ohio-934, ¶ 28 (5th Dist.). Rather, for an error to have affected

substantial rights pursuant to Crim.R. 52, the trial court's error must have affected the

1. Runyon's counsel did not object to the absence of notifications being recited by the trial court after it imposed the jointly recommended sentence in this case. Forfeiture would apply unless Runyon claimed denial of a constitutional or fundamental right, which he does not. State v. Rogers, 2015-Ohio-2459, ¶ 21- 22; State v. Quarterman, 2014-Ohio-4034, ¶15. R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) does not preclude appellate review of a sentence if the challenge is premised on constitutional grounds; however, that is not a challenge Runyon makes. State v. Castro, 2022-Ohio-4327, ¶ 12 (12th Dist.), following State v. Patrick, 2020-Ohio-6803, ¶ 22.
2. 14 - Clinton CA2025-03-008

outcome. See State v. Barnes, 2002-Ohio-68, ¶ 20. The trial court's failure to provide

Runyon with the Reagan Tokes Law notifications clearly had no impact on the sentence

it imposed in this case.

Sergent

{¶ 35} The Ohio Supreme Court in Sergent reviewed consecutive sentences that

were jointly recommended by the defendant and the State. Although the trial court did not

make statutorily mandated findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) to justify the imposition of

consecutive sentences, the Court nevertheless determined that the sentence was

"authorized by law." Id., 2016-Ohio-2696, at ¶ 30. The parties' agreement to recommend

the sentence that was to be imposed effectively stipulated to the court that it was justified,

thereby alleviating the need for the trial court judge to independently justify the sentence

imposed on the defendant. Id. at ¶ 28. Therefore, while the trial court certainly could have

modified the recommended sentence or rejected it entirely, the court instead accepted it.

The trial court's acceptance obviated the need for the court to make the consecutive-

sentence findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). See Id., at ¶ 30

{¶ 36} The mere possibility of imposing a different sentence did not implicitly oblige

the trial court to make consecutive-sentencing findings and justify the sentence; likewise,

here, the mere possibility of imposing a different sentence than the one Runyon and the

State jointly recommended did not implicitly oblige the trial court to determine whether the

sentence was necessary or required pursuant to R.C. 2929.19(B). The Reagan Tokes

Law notifications, i.e., informing a defendant of the potential procedures regarding an

indefinite term of imprisonment, only follow "if the sentencing court determines at the

sentencing hearing that a prison term is necessary or required." (Emphasis added.) R.C.

2929.19(B)(2). Because the sentence the trial court imposed upon Runyon in this case

was justified by the parties' joint recommendation, no determinations needed to be made

• 15 - Clinton CA2025-03-008

by the trial court, and the R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c)(i-v) notifications were not necessary.5

Failure to Properly Consider Prejudice and Misapplication of Dangler

{¶ 37} What is more, treating the Reagan Tokes Law notifications provided by R.C.

2929.19(B)(2)(c)(i-v) as a "mandatory sentencing provision" and automatically reversing

a sentence as "contrary to law" fails to properly consider prejudice. Not every statutory

error involving the word "shall" requires reversal. For example, in State v. Perry, 2004-

Ohio-297, the Ohio Supreme Court considered a statute that stated the trial court "shall"

perform certain functions during a jury trial. Id. at ¶ 7. The Court in Perry determined that,

despite the General Assembly's use of the word "shall" within the statute, if the error did

not affect a substantial right, the appellate court had no authority to disregard Crim.R.

52(A) and must consider whether the statutory error was harmless. Id. at 15. Thus, as the

Court in Perry emphasized, not all procedural violations mandate reversal, even where

they involve clear statutory requirements expressed by the word "shall."

{¶ 38} The Supreme Court stressed the importance of applying Crim.R. 52 to an

error not timely objected to, writing: "This court has 'rejected the notion that there is any

category of forfeited error that is not subject to the plain error rule's requirement of

prejudicial effect on the outcome. We do not retreat from that position today.'" State v.

West, 2022-Ohio-1556, at ¶ 2, quoting State v. Rogers, 2015-Ohio-2459, ¶ 24. Therefore,

as can be seen by the Court's decision in West, simply calling the Reagan Tokes Law

notifications "mandatory" does not create a new category of sentencing error, which

would negate the necessity of a Crim.R. 52 analysis.

{¶ 39} The attempt by my colleagues to apply the Ohio Supreme Court's decision

1. Granted, this is a strict textual reading of the statute. However, if the General Assembly intended the statute to operate differently, the matter remains its responsibility to correct. It is not for the judiciary to give meaning to a statute not otherwise expressed by the legislature.
2. 16 - Clinton CA2025-03-008

in Dangler, 2020-Ohio-2765, to a jointly recommended sentence is entirely novel and

merely a construct to reverse this case while avoiding the required Crim.R. 52 analysis.

Dangler is a case outside the context of a jointly recommended and imposed sentence,

and there is no precedent for applying Dangler in conjunction with the guidance found in

Underwood and Sergent. Dangler is related solely to Crim.R. 11(C) and involved

assessing whether a plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered. No contest

and guilty pleas involve a waiver of constitutional rights, for which the Court made a

"limited exception to the prejudice component" of Crim.R. 52. Id. at ¶ 14. In so doing, the

Court further explained that "when a trial court fails to fully cover other 'nonconstitutional'

aspects of the plea colloquy, a defendant must affirmatively show prejudice to invalidate

a plea." Id. at ¶ 17.

{¶ 40} The case at bar involves procedural notifications prescribed by statute; it

does not implicate constitutional rights or the voluntariness of a defendant's plea. The

failure to recite the Reagan Tokes Law notifications set forth in R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c)(i-v)

at a sentencing hearing does not automatically result in prejudice, nor does it excuse an

appellant's obligation to demonstrate prejudice.

{¶ 41} By way of comparison, there are times when defendants are not informed

by the trial court of their right to appeal at sentencing. Filing an appeal with the appellate

court because one was not notified of the right to appeal at sentencing is disingenuous

and borders on absurdity. This is why, when addressing this issue, '"[t]his court has

previously rejected claims where there is a failure to identify prejudice regarding

notification of appellate rights."' State v. Mauch, 2025-Ohio-413, ¶ 8 (12th Dist.), quoting

State v. Reynolds, 2018-Ohio-4942, ¶ 12 (12th Dist.); see, e.g., State v. Tornstrom, 2023-

Ohio-763, ¶ 52 (11th Dist.) (regardless of an absence of notification regarding appellate

rights, the error was not reversible without a demonstration of prejudice). Likewise, filing

• 17 - Clinton CA2025-03-008

an appeal because one did not receive a recitation of the Reagan Tokes Law procedures

at sentencing (which one is clearly aware of by virtue of appealing), without any

demonstration of prejudice, borders on absurdity. Even where there is a failure on the trial

court to recite a required sentencing provision, such failure may not consist of a prejudice

requiring reversal. See State v. Dean, 2015-Ohio-4347, ¶ 235 (trial court erred by not

informing defendant of community-service notifications required by statute, but Court

found lack of notice was not prejudicial because defendant was sentenced to death).

{¶ 42} That is all to say, the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in Dangler does not

stand for the proposition, as the majority opinion suggests, that a trial court's complete

failure to provide a statutory notice eliminates an appellant's need to demonstrate

prejudice. Such a proposition would invent a broad, distorted form of structural error that

violates the Court's prior precedent set forth in Perry and West.

Conclusion

{¶ 43} Runyon has not presented an assignment of error or argument that

implicates a constitutional right, or that the sentence he agreed to was affected in any

way. The sentence represented as appropriate was authorized by law. Therefore, Runyon

cannot evade the restriction of appellate review found in a R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) and his

appeal should be denied.6 Moreover, even if Runyon had a right to appeal, neither his

assignment of error nor his argument presents a Crim. R. 52 analysis to demonstrate his

claimed error was not harmless or that it was plain error affecting a substantial right. The

error Runyon attempts to claim was blatantly harmless. Therefore, I respectfully reject the

majority's reasoning and must dissent.

1. The Ohio Constitution grants appellate courts limited jurisdiction to affirm, modify, or reverse lower court decisions, but it does not grant a right to appeal. Neither is there a federal right to appeal. Because there is no constitutional right to appeal, the statutory right to appeal may be legislatively restricted; R.C.2953.08(D)(1) does just that.
2. 18 - Clinton CA2025-03-008

JUDGMENT ENTRY

The assignment of error properly before this court having been ruled upon, it is the
order of this court that the judgment or final order appealed from be, and the same hereby
is, reversed, and remanded for the sole and limited purpose of resentencing consistent
with the above Opinion. In all other respects, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

It is further ordered that a mandate be sent to the Clinton County Court of Common
Pleas for execution upon this judgment and that a certified copy of this Opinion and
Judgment Entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.

Costs to be taxed to appellee.

/s/ Mike Powell, Judge

/s/ Melena S. Siebert, Judge

• 19 -