[Cite as State v. White, 2021-Ohio-126.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

STATE OF OHIO, : 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, : 

 No. 109652 

 v. : 

 

ADRIAN W. WHITE, : 

 

 Defendant-Appellant. : 

 

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

 JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: January 21, 2021 

 

Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Case No. CR-19-640744-A 

 

Appearances: 

Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting 

Attorney, and Janna R. Lifford, Assistant Prosecuting 

Attorney, for appellee. 

Cullen Sweeney, Cuyahoga County Public Defender, and 

Robert McCaleb, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. 

MARY J. BOYLE, A.J.: 

Defendant-appellant, Adrian White, appeals his sentence. He raises 

the following sole assignment of error: 
As amended by the Reagan Tokes Act, the Revised Code’s sentences for 

first and second degree qualifying felonies violate the Constitutions of 

the United States and the State of Ohio. 

Finding no merit to his appeal, we affirm his sentence. 

I. Procedural History and Factual Background 

White was indicted on 11 counts in July 2019, for offenses that 

occurred on April 15, 2019, including two counts each of trafficking, drug 

possession, and felonious assault with furthermore clauses that the victim was a 

peace officer, and one count each of failure to comply with an order or signal of a 

police officer, improperly handling firearms in a motor vehicle, carrying a concealed 

weapon, possessing criminal tools, and resisting arrest. Many of the counts carried 

forfeiture and firearm specifications. 

On the same day in March 2020, the trial court held a plea and 

sentencing hearing. White pleaded guilty to an amended indictment of seven 

counts, including Counts 1 and 2, felonious assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(2) 

without the furthermore clauses that the victim was a peace officer, second-degree 

felonies; Count 3, failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer in 

violation of R.C. 2921.331(B), a third-degree felony; Count 4, improperly handling 

firearms in a motor vehicle in violation of R.C. 2923.16(B), a fourth-degree felony; 

Court 8, trafficking in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2) without a one-year firearm 

specification but with forfeiture specifications, a fifth-degree felony; Count 10, 

possessing criminal tools in violation of R.C. 2923.24(A) with forfeiture 

specifications, a fifth-degree felony; and Count 11, resisting arrest in violation of R.C. 
2921.33(A), a second-degree misdemeanor. The remaining counts were nolled. As 

part of his plea, White agreed to forfeit two cell phones, a firearm, a digital scale, 

ammunition, and $1,830. The state and White also agreed to a joint-sentence 

recommendation of a minimum of five years to a maximum of seven-and-a-half 

years in prison. White also agreed that he would not be judicially released before 

spending five years in prison. 

The trial court sentenced White as follows: four to six years in prison 

for Count 1, felonious assault; four to six years for Count 2, felonious assault; 12 

months for Count 3, failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer; ten 

months for Count 4, improperly handling firearms in a motor vehicle; six months 

for Count 8, trafficking; six months for Count 10, possessing criminal tools; and 90 

days in jail for Count 11, resisting arrest. The trial court ordered that Count 3 be 

served prior to and consecutive to Counts 1, 2, 4, 8, 10, and 11, which will run 

concurrent to each other, for an aggregate sentence of a minimum of five and a 

maximum of six years in prison. The trial court also notified White that he would 

be subject to a mandatory period of three years of postrelease control upon his 

release from prison. It is from this judgment that White now appeals. 

II. Reagan Tokes Act 

In his sole assignment of error, White argues that Ohio Revised Code 

sentencing provisions as enacted by Am.Sub.S.B. No. 201, commonly known as the 

Reagan Tokes Act, are unconstitutional. He claims that the Reagan Tokes Act 
violates (1) the constitutional right to a trial by jury, (2) the separation-of-powers 

doctrine, and (3) due process. 

First, White’s sentence is not reviewable because his sentenced was 

authorized by law, and the trial court sentenced him within the jointly 

recommended sentencing range. State v. Williams, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109091, 

2020-Ohio-4467, ¶ 32. 

Second, even if White could challenge his sentence, he did not object 

to his sentence or raise a constitutional challenge to the Reagan Tokes Act at his 

sentencing hearing. “It is well established that ‘the question of the constitutionality 

of a statute must generally be raised at the first opportunity and, in a criminal 

prosecution, this means in the trial court.’” State v. Alexander, 12th Dist. Butler No. 

CA2019-12-204, 2020-Ohio-3838, ¶ 8, quoting State v. Buttery, Slip Opinion No. 

2020-Ohio-2998, ¶ 7. 

This court has recently declined to address constitutional challenges 

to the Reagan Tokes Act when defendants did not object to their sentences or 

otherwise raise the constitutionality of the act at their sentencing hearing. See State 

v. Dames, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109090, 2020-Ohio-4991, ¶ 12-19; State v. Hollis, 

8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109092, 2020-Ohio-5258, ¶ 47-54; and State v. Stone, 8th 

Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109322, 2020-Ohio-5263, ¶ 6-10. We therefore decline to 

address White’s constitutional arguments raised for the first time on appeal. 
Although this court has the discretion to review arguments that were 

not raised in the trial court for plain error, we decline to do so here. As we noted in 

Dames: 

Even if the appellant failed to object to the constitutionality of the 

statute at the trial-court level, appellate courts may still review a trial 

court decision for plain error. State v. Quarterman, 140 Ohio St.3d 

464, 2014-Ohio-4034, 19 N.E.3d 900, ¶ 16. However, in order to 

review for plain error “we require a showing that there was an error, 

that the error was plain or obvious, that but for the error the outcome 

of the proceeding would have been otherwise, and that reversal must 

be necessary to correct a manifest miscarriage of justice.” Dames did 

not make any plain error showing for this court to review. 

Id. at ¶ 14; see also Hollis at ¶ 50 (“Furthermore, like Dames, appellant failed to raise 

a plain error argument in this appeal, and we decline to construct a plain error 

argument on appellant’s behalf.”); Stone at ¶ 10 (“In addition to failing to raise a 

constitutional challenge of the Reagan Tokes Act in the trial court, Stone also has 

not argued plain error in this appeal. Thus, we decline to address this issue for the 

first time on appeal.”). 

Accordingly, White’s sole assignment of error is overruled. 

Judgment affirmed. 

It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed. 

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the 

common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant’s 

conviction having been affirmed, any bail pending is terminated. Case remanded to 

the trial court for execution of sentence. 
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

 

MARY J. BOYLE, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE 

ANITA LASTER MAYS, J., and 

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J., CONCUR