[Cite as State v. Sealey, 2022-Ohio-1166.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE OF OHIO, :

Plaintiff-Appellant, :

No. 109670

v. :

ANTOINE SEALEY, JR., :

Defendant-Appellee. :

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION EN BANC

JUDGMENT: VACATED AND REMANDED

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: April 7, 2022

Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas

Case No. CR-19-644811-A

Appearances:

Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting 

Attorney, and Daniel T. Van, Assistant Prosecuting 

Attorney, for appellant. 

Cullen Sweeney, Cuyahoga County Public Defender, and 

Frank Cavallo, Assistant Public Defender, for appellee. 

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, A.J.:

{¶ 1} The state of Ohio appeals the trial court’s conclusion declaring the 

Reagan Tokes Law to be unconstitutional. For the following reasons, the trial court’s 

decision is reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings.
{¶ 2} Antoine Sealey, Jr., pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery in violation of 

R.C. 2911.01(A)(1), a first-degree felony, with a one-year firearm specification. The 

trial court concluded that the Reagan Tokes Law was unconstitutional and did not 

sentence Sealey under R.C. 2929.144 or 2929.14(A)(1)(a), instead reverting to the 

sentencing structure before the effective date of the Reagan Tokes Act. Sealey was 

sentenced to a definite term of three years in prison for the aggravated robbery and 

one year in prison for the firearm specification, to run consecutive to one another, 

resulting in an aggregate four-year term of imprisonment. 

{¶ 3} The panel decision in State v. Sealey, 2021-Ohio-1949, 173 N.E.3d 894, 

¶ 45 (8th Dist.), affirmed the trial court’s decision, concluding that “the Reagan 

Tokes Law” violates Sealey’s constitutional rights and, as a result, “the trial court’s 

finding the Reagan Tokes Law unconstitutional is affirmed * * *.” Id. at ¶ 44-45. 

Pursuant to App.R. 26, Loc.App.R. 26, and McFadden v. Cleveland State Univ., 120 

Ohio St.3d 54, 2008-Ohio-4914, 896 N.E.2d 672, this court sua sponte determined

that the panel decision in Sealey conflicts with State v. Gamble, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga 

No. 109613, 2021-Ohio-1810, State v. Simmons, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109476, 

2021-Ohio-939, and State v. Wilburn, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109507, 2021-Ohio578, which overruled the same arguments advanced in this case.

{¶ 4} In this appeal, in support of the trial court’s conclusion, Sealey claims, 

citing the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, 

Section 16, of the Ohio Constitution, (1) that the Reagan Tokes Law violates the right 

to trial by jury, (2) that the Reagan Tokes Law violates the separation-of-powers 
doctrine, or (3) that R.C. 2967.271(C) and (D), which provide offenders with the 

right to a hearing before imposition of the maximum term imposed under R.C. 

2929.144, fail to provide the full panoply of constitutional pretrial rights in violation 

of their due process rights. We need not dwell on the arguments presented. Based 

on the authority established by this district’s en banc holding in State v. Delvallie, 

8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109315, 2021-Ohio-470, those challenges advanced against 

the constitutional validity of the Reagan Tokes Law have been overruled, contrary 

to the conclusions reached in Sealey, which was vacated through this court’s 

majority en banc decision and is no longer the decision in this case. See id. at ¶ 17-

51, 103; App.R. 26(A)(2). 

{¶ 5} Upon review of the case under App.R. 26, the arguments presented in 

this case do not present novel issues or any new theory challenging the 

constitutional validity of the Reagan Tokes Law. As a result, Sealey’s sentence 

imposed upon the aggravated robbery conviction without consideration of R.C. 

2929.144 or 2929.14(A)(1)(a) is void. Sealey’s sentence is therefore vacated. This 

case is remanded for a new sentencing hearing to be conducted in accordance with

R.C. 2929.144, 2929.14(A)(1)(a), and all other applicable statutory sections. 

{¶ 6} Vacated and remanded.

It is ordered that appellant recover from appellee 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. Case remanded to the 

trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

__ 

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE 

MARY J. BOYLE, FRANK DANIEL CELEBREZZE, III, EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, 

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, CORNELIUS J. O’SULLIVAN, JR., and MICHELLE J. 

SHEEHAN, JJ., CONCUR; 

LISA B. FORBES, EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, EMANUELLA D. GROVES, MARY 

EILEEN KILBANE, and ANITA LASTER MAYS, JJ., CONCUR IN JUDGMENT 

ONLY

N.B. Judge Lisa B. Forbes is constrained to apply Delvallie. For a full explanation, 

see State v. Delvallie, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109315, 2022-Ohio-470 (Forbes, J., 

dissenting).

Judge Anita Laster Mays is constrained to apply Delvallie’s en banc decision. For a 

full explanation of her analysis see State v. Delvallie, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109315, 

2022-Ohio-470.

Judge Eileen T. Gallagher joined the dissent by Judge Lisa B. Forbes in Delvallie

and would have found that R.C. 2967.271(C) and (D) of the Reagan Tokes Law are 

unconstitutional.

Judge Emanuella D. Groves concurred with the opinions of Judge Lisa B. Forbes 

(dissenting) and Judge Anita Laster Mays (concurring in part and dissenting in part) 

in Delvallie and would have found the Reagan Tokes Law unconstitutional.

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.