[Cite as State v. McCain , 2023

- Ohio

- 1573.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA STATE OF OHIO, :

Plaintiff

- Appell ee , : No. 111980
v. : KARMONE MCCAIN, :

Defendant

- Appell ant

. :

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: May 11, 2023

Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas

Case No s . CR

- 22
- 667831

- A and CR

- 22
- 668061

- A

Appearances:
Michael C. O ’ Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and J onathan Block, A ssistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. Cullen Sweeney, Cuyahoga County Public Defender, and Michael V. Wilhelm, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant

.
ANITA LASTER MAYS, A

. J.:

Plaintiff

- appellant Karmone McCain ( “ McCain ” ) filed this appeal of
the trial court ’ s sentence under S.B. 201 known as the Reagan Tokes Law ( “ Reagan
Tokes ” ) on the grou nd that the law is unconstitutional. We affirm.I. Facts and Procedural History
McCain pleaded guilty to and was sentenced on multiple charges in the underlying cases , several of which were subject to the imposition of Reagan
Tokes.

In Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR

- 22
- 6678 3 1
- A , McCain was charged with

a ttempted kidnapping, R.C. 2932.02 and 2905.01, a second

- degree felony; robbery, R.C. 2911.02(A)(2), a second

- degree felony; intimidation of a crime victim or witness, R.C. 2921.04(B)(1), a third

- de gree felony; theft, aggravated theft,
R.C. 2913.02(A)(1) , a fifth

- degree felony; and assault, R.C. 2903.13, a first

- degree
misdemeanor. Journal entry No. 128567998, p. 1. (Aug. 31, 20 22 )

. In Cuyahoga
C.P. No. CR

- 22
- 668061

- A , McCain was charged with felon ious assault,
R.C. 2903.11(A)(1), a second

- degree felony; and abduction, R.C. 2905.02 (A)(2), a
third

- degree felony. Journal entry No. 128567730, p. 1 (Aug. 31, 20 22 )

.

The trial court advised McCain of the Reagan Tokes notifications during McCain ’ s plea and sentencing as required by R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)( c )

. 1 McCain objected to imposition of Reagan Tokes and argues on appeal that the trial court
violated McCain ’ s constitutional rights by imposing a Reagan Tokes sentence under
S.B. 201. Specificall y, M c Cain argues that Reagan Tokes violates the : (1) right to

1 The fai lure of a trial court to notify a defendant of all R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) notifications at both the plea hearing and the sentencing hearing renders the sentence contrary to law. See State v. Gates , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 110616, 2022
- Ohio

- 1666 ; State v. Bentley , 4th Dist. Adams No. 21CA1147, 2022

- Ohio

- 1914
.trial by jury; (2) separation

- of

- powers doctrine; and (3) due process guarantees

. McCain also states that se verance is not an appropriate remedy.

McCain generally advances that this court ’ s analysis in the original
State v. Delvallie , 2021
- Ohio

- 1809, 173 N.E.3d 544 (8th Dist.) , was correct. While this writer may certainly agree, b ased on the authority established by this court ’ s en banc holding in State v. Delvallie , 2022
- Ohio

- 470 , 185 N.E.3d 536 (8th Dist.) , the challenges advanced by McCain have been overruled

. See id . at ¶ 17

- 54.

McCain ’ s assigned errors lack merit. The trial court ’ s judgment is
affirmed.

I t is ordered that appell ee recover from appell ant cost s 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 const itute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

______ ANITA LASTER MAYS, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J., and MICHAEL JOHN RYAN, J., CONCUR

N.B. Administrative Judge Anita Laster Mays is constrained to apply Delvallie ’ s en banc decision. For a full explanation of her analysis, see State v. Delvallie , 2022
- Ohio

- 470, 185 N.E.3d 536 (8th Dist.) (Laster Mays, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).Judge Mary Eileen Kilbane joined the dissenting opinion by Judge Lisa B. Forbes

and the concurring in part and dissenting in part opinion by Judge Anita Laster Mays in Delvallie and would have found the Reagan Tokes Law unconstitutional.