The Ohio Court of Appeals has upheld a mandatory prison sentence for Riquo D. Duncan, who was convicted of attempted aggravated drug trafficking. The court's decision, issued on September 21, 2026, clarifies the application of mandatory sentencing laws in Ohio, impacting how similar cases may be handled in the future.
Duncan, who pled guilty to two counts of attempted aggravated trafficking in drugs, will serve a prison sentence of nine to 11.5 years. This ruling is significant as it addresses the legal interpretation of Ohio's sentencing statutes, particularly regarding the eligibility for sentence reductions.
The case began when Duncan entered a plea agreement with the state, which led to the dismissal of other charges against him. After his guilty plea, the Clermont County Court of Common Pleas imposed a mandatory, indefinite prison sentence. However, during the sentencing process, the trial court informed Duncan that he was not eligible for a reduction of his minimum sentence, a point that Duncan later contested in his appeal.
The Ohio Court of Appeals, led by Judge Melena S. Siebert, reviewed Duncan's appeal and the applicable laws. The court found that the trial court's statement about Duncan's ineligibility for a sentence reduction was correct, based on the clear wording of Ohio's sentencing statutes. The court stated, "The applicable statutes are unambiguous that Duncan's prison sentence is mandatory and cannot be reduced under various statutory procedures."
In its ruling, the court compared Duncan's case to similar cases from other districts, noting a conflict in how different courts interpret the same laws. The court specifically referenced cases from the Eighth District and the Fifth District, which had reached different conclusions regarding the eligibility for sentence reductions under Ohio's Earned Minimum Reduction Statute.
In the Eighth District's case, State v. Nicholson, the court determined that defendants could earn a reduction in their minimum prison terms, despite the mandatory nature of their sentences. Conversely, the Fifth District upheld the idea that mandatory sentences cannot be reduced, supporting the ruling in Duncan's case.
The Ohio Court of Appeals ultimately sided with the Fifth District's interpretation, concluding that the Earned Minimum Reduction Statute does not apply to sentences imposed under the Mandatory-Sentence Provision. This decision reinforces the notion that certain offenses, including Duncan's, carry a mandatory sentence that cannot be altered.
This ruling has significant implications for future drug trafficking cases in Ohio. It clarifies that individuals convicted of serious drug offenses, such as attempted aggravated trafficking, will face strict sentencing guidelines that do not allow for reductions based on behavior or other mitigating factors. The ruling emphasizes the state's commitment to enforcing mandatory sentences for serious drug-related crimes.
Looking ahead, the court's decision may lead to further scrutiny of Ohio's sentencing laws. The court has certified a conflict with the Eighth District's ruling to the Supreme Court of Ohio, which will now have the opportunity to provide a final determination on this legal issue. The certified question is: "Does the Earned Minimum Reduction Statute—R.C. 2967.271(F)—apply to sentences imposed under the Mandatory-Sentence Provision—R.C. 2929.13(F)?"
This ongoing legal debate highlights the complexities of Ohio's sentencing framework and the potential for changes in how similar cases are handled in the future. As the Supreme Court of Ohio prepares to address this conflict, the outcome may reshape the landscape of sentencing for drug offenses in the state.