[Cite as State v. Heater, 2023-Ohio-1789.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

HANCOCK COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,

 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 5-22-32 

 v.

MADELEINE R. HEATER, O P I N I O N

 DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appeal from Hancock County Common Pleas Court

Trial Court No. 2022 CR 106

Judgment Affirmed

Date of Decision: May 30, 2023

APPEARANCES:

William T. Cramer for Appellant

Phillip A. Riegle for Appellee
Case No. 5-22-32

-2-

WALDICK, J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Madeleine R. Heater (“Heater”), appeals the 

judgment of sentence entered in the Hancock County Court of Common Pleas on 

October 5, 2022. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

Procedural History

{¶2} Procedurally, this case originated on March 1, 2022, when the Hancock 

County Grand Jury returned an indictment charging Heater with one count of 

Aggravated Possession of Drugs (Methamphetamine), a first-degree felony in 

violation of R.C. 2925.11(A). 

{¶3} On March 4, 2022, an arraignment was held and Heater entered an 

initial plea of not guilty. Several months of pretrial proceedings then ensued.

{¶4} On August 5, 2022, a change of plea hearing was held. At that time, 

Heater entered a negotiated plea of guilty to an amended indictment, the possession 

charge in the original indictment having been amended upon the state’s motion to a 

second-degree felony.

{¶5} On September 21, 2022, a sentencing hearing was held. At that time, 

Heater was sentenced to a minimum prison term of three years, with a potential 

maximum prison term of four and one-half years.

{¶6} On October 13, 2022, Heater filed the instant appeal, in which she raises 

a single assignment of error for our review.
Case No. 5-22-32

-3-

Assignment of Error

Indefinite prison terms imposed under the Reagan Tokes Law 

violate the jury trial guarantee, the doctrine of separation of 

powers, and due process principles under the federal and state 

constitutions. 

Analysis

{¶7} In the sole assignment of error, Heater contends that the trial court erred 

in imposing an indefinite prison term pursuant to the Reagan Tokes Act, with Heater 

arguing that the Reagan Tokes Act is unconstitutional. 

{¶8} Heater did not challenge the constitutionality of the Reagan Tokes Law 

in the trial court, so we therefore apply the plain-error standard of review in this 

case. State v. Ball, 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-21-16, 2022-Ohio-1549, ¶ 57. “An error 

qualifies as ‘plain error’ only if it is obvious and but for the error, the outcome of 

the proceeding clearly would have been otherwise.” State v. Barnhart, 3d Dist. 

Putnam No. 12-20-08, 2021-Ohio-2874, ¶ 8, citing State v. Yarbrough, 95 Ohio 

St.3d 227, 245, 2002-Ohio-2126, ¶ 32.

{¶9} As this Court noted in Ball, supra, challenges to the Reagan Tokes Law 

do not present a matter of first impression in this Court. Ball at ¶ 59. “Since the 

indefinite sentencing provisions of the Reagan Tokes Law went into effect in March 

2019, we have repeatedly been asked to address the constitutionality of 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 
Case No. 5-22-32

-4-

or infringe on defendants’ due process rights.” Id. citing e.g., State v. Crawford, 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. We have also rejected constitutional challenges related to the 

jury trial issue. See Ball at ¶ 61-63. 

{¶10} Thus, on the basis of Ball and other prior precedent, this Court finds 

no merit to Heater’s arguments in this case. The assignment of error is overruled.

{¶11} Having found no error prejudicial to the defendant-appellant in the 

particulars assigned and argued, the judgment of the Hancock County Court of 

Common Pleas is affirmed.

Judgment Affirmed

MILLER, P.J. and ZIMMERMAN, J., concur.

/jlr