[Cite as State v. Thomason , 2022
- Ohio
- 3873.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT ALLEN COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF
- APPELLEE, CASE NO. 1
- 22
- 33

v. JOHNNY L. THOMASON, O P I N I O N DEFENDANT
- APPELLANT.

Appeal from Allen County Common Pleas Court

Trial Court No. CR2021 0313 Judgment Affirmed Date of Decision: October 31, 2022

APPEARANCES: 

### F. Stephen Chamberlain for Appellant 

### Jana E. Emerick f

or AppelleeCase No. 1

- 22

- 33

- 2

-

SHAW, J. {¶1} Defendant

- Appellant, Johnny L. Thomason (“Thomason”), appeals the April 29, 2022 judgment of the Allen County Court of Common Pleas c hallenging his indefinite sentence imposed under the Reagan Tokes L aw. Facts and Procedural History {¶2} In October 2021, Thomason was charged in a ten

- count indictment with various felony sex offenses . Pursuant to a n egotiated plea agreement, Thomason pleaded guilty to Count 3, rape , a first

- degree felony; Count 5, gross sexual imposition, a fourth

- degree felony; Count 6, gross sexual imposition, a fourth

degree felony; Count 9, importuning, a fifth

- degree felony; and Count 10, disseminating matter harmful to juveniles, a fifth

- degree felony . The remaining
counts we re dismissed. The trial court sentenced Thomason to a term of ten years ( mandatory minimum) to fifteen years (maximum) on Count 3 ; fifteen months on both Count 5 and Count 6; twelve months on both Count 9 and Count 10 , with all counts to be served consecutively , for a total indefinite sentence of fourteen years and six months to a maximum nineteen years and six months in prison . The trial court also imposed five years of mandatory post

- release control and classified
T homason as a Tier III sex offender.Case No. 1

- 22

- 33

- 3

-

{¶3} At sentencing, the trial court overruled a defense motion objecting to the imposition of an indefinite prison sentence under the Reagan Tokes L aw on the grounds of unconstitutionality

. Thomason now appeals from the trial court’s judgment, raising the following assignments of error for our review.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1 The Reagan Tokes Law, 132 GA Senate Bill 201 is unconstitutional because it violates the separation
- of
- powers doctrine. ASSIG NMENT OF ERROR NO. 2 The Reagan Tokes Law, 132 GA Senate Bill 201 is unconstitutional because it violates right to due process.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 3 The Reagan Tokes Law, 132 GA Senate Bill 201 is unconstitutional because it violates the constitutional right to a jury trial. {¶4} In the three assignments of error, which we will address together, Thom a son contends that the indefinite sentence of incarceration imposed on Count 3 pursuant to the Reagan Tokes L aw is unconstitutional as it violates the separation

of

- powers doctrine and violates his constitutional right s to due process and to a trial by jury. {¶5} As this Court has noted in State v. Ball, 3d Dist. Allen No. 1

- 21

- 16, 2022

- Ohio

- 1549, challenges to the Reagan Tokes L aw do not present a matter of first impression in this Court

. Ball at ¶ 59. “Since the indefinite sentencingCase No. 1

- 22

- 33

- 4

-

provisions of the Reagan Tokes Law went into effect in March 2019, we have repeatedly been asked to address the constitutionality o f these provisions

. We have invariably concluded that the indefinite sentencing provisions of the Reagan Tokes Law do not facially violate the separation

- of

- powers doctrine or infringe on defendants’ due process rights.” Id. citing e.g. , State v. Crawfor d , 3d Dist. Henry No. 7

- 20

- 05, 2021

- Ohio

- 547, ¶ 10

- 11; State v. Hacker , 3d Dist. Logan No. 8

- 20

- 01, 2020

- Ohio

- 5048, ¶ 22; State v. Wolfe , 3d Dist. Union No. 14

- 21

- 16, 2022

- Ohio

- 96, ¶ 21

. Further, for the reasons stated in Ball , the remaining constitutional issue under Reagan Tokes related to a jury trial is also unavailing

. Id. at ¶ 61

- 63

. {¶6} Thus, o n the basis of Ball and our prior precedent, this Court finds no merit to Thomason’s contentions

. The three assignments of error are overruled. {¶7} Th e judgment of the Allen County Common Pleas Court is affirmed. Judgment Affirmed ZIMMERMAN, P.J. and MILLER, J., concur. /jlr