[Cite as State v. Carano , 2022

- Ohio

- 2872.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE OF OHIO , :

Plaintiff

- Appell ee , : No. 1 11248
v. :
SHANNON CARANO , :

Defendant

- Appell ant

. :

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: August 18, 2022

Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas

Case No. CR

- 21

- 658104

- A

Appearances: Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Melissa Riley , Assi stant Prosecuting Attorney , for a

ppell ee
. Michael P. Maloney , for appellant.

FRANK D ANIEL CELEBREZZE , III , P. J. :

Defendant

- appellant Shannon Carano (“Carano”) brings this appeal challenging her sentence that was imposed pursuant to the Reagan Tokes Law, enacted by S.B. 201. After a thorough review of the record and law, this court
affirms.I. Facts and Procedural Hist ory Carano was indicted by a Cuyahoga County G rand J ury for five counts of pandering sexually oriented matter involving a minor , a second

- degree felony in violation of R.C. 2907. 322 (A)(2 ); six counts of pandering sexually oriented matter involving a minor, a fourth

- degree felony in violation of R.C. 2907.322(A)(5); five counts of illegal use of minor in nudity

- oriented material or performance, a fifth

degree felony in violation of R.C. 2907.323(A)(3); and one count of possessing criminal tools, a fift h

- degree felony in violation of R.C. 2923.24(A).

The Ohio Internet Crimes Against Children T ask F orce (“ICAC”) investigator alleged that Carano , via a social media messaging app lication , shared photographs and videos of prepubescent children engaging in sexual activity

. The
children were not her own. The I CAC found 52 files of suspected child

- exploitation material on Carano’s mobile phone. Carano indicated that her activity was borne out of curiosity and motivated by the attention she received from oth er users of the messaging application.

Carano entered into a plea agreement with the state, pleading guilty to
all counts except for the four counts of illegal use of minor in nudity

- oriented material or performance and the single count of possessing criminal tools, which
were nolled.

The trial court sentenced Carano pursuant to the Reagan Tokes Law

. The court imposed a minimum sentence of seven ye ars with a maximum of ten andone
- half years. Additionally, Carano was required to register as a sex offender and

submit to DNA specimen collection testing.

Carano timely appealed her sentence , assigning a single assignment of
error for our review:

The indefinite sentence imposed upon appellant under the Ohio Reagan Tokes A

ct was unconstitutional.

II. Law and Argument Carano argues that the Reagan Tokes Law’s sentencing structure is
unconstitutional under the separation

- of

- powers doctrine.

We first note th at Carano did not object to sentencing under the Reagan Tokes Law, and thus waives all but plain error.

Nevertheless, t his court ’s en banc decision in State v. Delvallie , 2022

- Ohio

- 470, 185 N.E.3d 536 (8th Dist.) , overruled the same separation

- of

- power s challenge to the Reagan Tokes Law that Carano raises in her appeal. Id. at ¶ 38

. Because this court held that sentencing under the Reagan Tokes Law is
constitutional , the trial court did not err in sentencing Carano accordingly

. We
therefore find that Carano’s sentence was not a violation of her constitutional rights and overrule her sole assignment of error.

III. Conclusion
This court’s en banc decision in Delvallie held that the Reagan Tokes

Law is constitutional under the separation

- of

- powers doctr ine. Accordingly , Carano’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 mand ate issue out of this court directing the common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

________________________________ _________ FRANK D ANIEL CELEBREZZE, III , PRESID I NG JUDGE

EMANUELL

A D. GROVES , J., and CORNELIUS J. O’SULLIVAN, JR. , J., CONCUR

N.B. Judge Emanuella D. Groves concurred with the opinions of Judge Lisa B. Forbes (dissenting) and Judge Anita Laster Mays (co ncurring in part and dissenting in part) in Delvallie and would have found the Reagan Tokes Law unconstitutional.