[Cite as State v. Hunter, 2022-Ohio-2377.]

COURT OF APPEALS

MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO JUDGES:

Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, P.J.

 Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. W. Scott Gwin, J.

Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.

-vsCase No. CT2020-0042

TEDDIE HUNTER

 Defendant-Appellant O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Appeal from the Muskingum County 

Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 

CR2020-0089

JUDGMENT: Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: July 8, 2022

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant

RONALD L. WELCH CHRIS BRIGDON

Prosecuting Attorney 8138 Somerset Road

Muskingum County, Ohio Thornville, Ohio 43076

TAYLOR P. BENNINGTON 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 

Muskingum County, Ohio 

27 North Fifth Street

P.O. Box 189

Zanesville, Ohio 43701-0189
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2020-0042 2

Hoffman, J.

{¶1} This case comes before this Court from the judgment entered by the Ohio 

Supreme Court on April 27, 2022, remanding this case for this Court to consider whether 

the challenged provisions of the Reagan Tokes Law are constitutional. Defendantappellant is Teddie Hunter. Appellee is the state of Ohio.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE

{¶2} On February 2, 2020, Muskingum County Sheriff's deputies were 

dispatched to 16 Gaslight Lane in Zanesville, Ohio. Upon arriving at the residence, 

Charles Perry and Laura Kronbitter, who resided at the home with their infant son, 

reported a naked man attempted to force himself into their home. Perry and Kronbitter 

told police the naked man said he was afraid because someone was trying to kill him. 

Perry stated the man tried to force his way into the home with a PVC pipe, and tried to hit 

Perry with the pipe by using the pipe as a spear. The man forced his foot inside the 

residence, preventing Perry from closing the door. While Kronbitter called the police, 

Perry managed to force the man outside.

{¶3} Police located a naked man, later identified as Appellant, at 15 Gaslight 

Lane. Appellant admitted to using methamphetamine, and methamphetamine was found 

in his system.

{¶4} Appellant was charged with one count of aggravated burglary with a repeat 

violent offender specification. Pursuant to a negotiated plea, the State amended the 

charge to one count of burglary, in exchange for Appellant's plea of guilty to the charge. 

Following a presentence investigation, Appellant was sentenced to eight to twelve years 

incarceration. Appellant appealed the judgment of conviction and sentence, assigning as 

error:
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2020-0042 3

I. AS AMENDED BY THE REAGAN TOKES ACT, THE REVISED 

CODE'S SENTENCES FOR FIRST AND SECOND DEGREE QUALIFYING 

FELONIES VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTIONS OF THE UNITED STATES 

AND THE STATE OF OHIO.

II. TEDDIE HUNTER RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF 

COUNSEL, IN VIOLATION OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE 

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND SECTION 10, ARTICLE I OF THE 

OHIO CONSTITUTION.

III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT SENTENCED HUNTER 

TO A MAXIMUM TERM OF INCARCERATION, IN VIOLATION OF HIS 

RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS, GUARANTEED BY SECTION 10, ARTICLE 

I OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION, AND THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH 

AMENDMENTS TO THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.

IV. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY ORDERING HUNTER TO PAY 

COURT COSTS.

{¶5} This Court found the issue of the constitutionality of the Reagan Tokes Law 

to be not yet ripe for review, and overruled Appellant’s remaining assignments of error. 

State v. Hunter, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2020-0042, 2021-Ohio-1424. This case 

came before the Ohio Supreme Court. The Ohio Supreme Court reversed this Court's 

decision finding the issue of constitutionality not ripe for review, and remanded to this 

Court with instructions to issue a ruling on the constitutionality of the Reagan Tokes Law. 

In re Cases Held for the Decision in State v. Maddox, 2022-Ohio-1352.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2020-0042 4

I.

{¶6} In his first assignment of error, Appellant challenges the presumptive 

release feature of R.C. 2967.271, arguing it violates his constitutional rights to trial by jury 

and due process of law, and further violates the constitutional requirement of separation 

of powers.

{¶7} For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion of The Honorable W. Scott 

Gwin in State v. Wolfe, 5th Dist. Licking No. 2020CA00021, 2020-Ohio-5501, 2020 WL 

7054428, we find the Reagan Tokes Law does not violate Appellant's constitutional rights 

to trial by jury and due process of law, and does not violate the constitutional requirement 

of separation of powers. We hereby adopt the dissenting opinion in Wolfe as the opinion 

of this Court. In so holding, we also note the sentencing law has been found constitutional 

by the Second, Third, and Twelfth Districts, and also by the Eighth District sitting en banc. 

See, e.g., State v. Ferguson, 2nd Dist. Montgomery No. 28644, 2020-Ohio-4153, 2020 

WL 4919694; State v. Hacker, 3rd Dist., 2020-Ohio-5048, 161 N.E.3d 112; State v. 

Guyton, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2019-12-203, 2020-Ohio-3837, 2020 WL 4279793; State 

v. Delvallie, 8th Dist., 2022-Ohio-470, 185 N.E.3d 536.

{¶8} The first assignment of error is overruled.

II.

{¶9} In his second assignment of error, Appellant argues his trial counsel was 

ineffective by failing to raise the constitutionality of R.C. 2967.271 in the trial court.

{¶10} A properly licensed attorney is presumed competent. State v. Hamblin, 37 

Ohio St.3d 153, 524 N.E.2d 476 (1988). Therefore, in order to prevail on a claim of 

ineffective assistance of counsel, Appellant must show counsel's performance fell below 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2020-0042 5

an objective standard of reasonable representation and but for counsel's error, the result 

of the proceedings would have been different. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 

104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 538 N.E.2d 

373 (1989). In other words, Appellant must show counsel's conduct so undermined the 

proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied upon as having 

produced a just result. Id.

{¶11} Because we have found R.C. 2967.271 to be constitutional, Appellant has 

not demonstrated prejudice from counsel's failure to raise the claim in the trial court.

{¶12} The second assignment of error is overruled.

{¶13} The judgment of the Muskingum County Common Pleas Court is affirmed. 

By: Hoffman, J.

Baldwin, P.J. and

Gwin, J. concur