[Cite as State v. Shead, 2023-Ohio-3838.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

PORTAGE COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

- vs -

JULIANNE M. SHEAD,

Defendant-Appellant.

CASE NO. 2023-P-0002

Criminal Appeal from the

Court of Common Pleas

Trial Court No. 2020 CR 00999

O P I N I O N

Decided: October 23, 2023

Judgment: Affirmed

Victor V. Vigluicci, Portage County Prosecutor, and Pamela J. Holder, Assistant 

Prosecutor, 241 South Chestnut Street, Ravenna, OH 44266 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).

Brian A. Smith, Brian A. Smith Law Firm, LLC, 123 South Miller Road, Suite 250, 

Fairlawn, OH 44333, and Candace Kim-Knox, 686 West Market Street, Akron, OH 

44303 (For Defendant-Appellant).

EUGENE A. LUCCI, J.

{¶1} Appellant, Julianne M. Shead, appeals the judgment sentencing her to an 

aggregate minimum prison term of 30 years following her guilty pleas to multiple counts 

of aggravated vehicular homicide, aggravated vehicular assault, driving under 

suspension, operating a vehicle under the influence, and reckless operation. We affirm. 

{¶2} In 2020, Shead was driving an extended cab pickup truck containing eight 

occupants, two of whom were seated on the laps of other passengers in the back seat, 

and only one of whom had secured himself in a safety belt. Shead attempted to navigate 
2

Case No. 2023-P-0002

a curve too quickly and lost control of the truck, which struck a tree, shearing the 

passenger side and roof off the truck cab. Five of the passengers were ejected from the 

truck, three of whom died on impact. The remaining passengers suffered severe injuries. 

Subsequent testing determined that Shead had a blood alcohol level of .105.

{¶3} Thereafter, Shead was charged with numerous offenses relating to the 

crash, including multiple counts of aggravated vehicular assault and aggravated vehicular 

homicide. Shead initially pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, pursuant to plea negotiations, 

Shead entered guilty pleas to: three counts of aggravated vehicular homicide, first-degree 

felonies, in violation of R.C. 2903.06; four counts of aggravated vehicular assault, seconddegree felonies, in violation of R.C. 2903.08; driving under suspension, a first-degree 

misdemeanor, in violation of R.C. 4510.14; operating a vehicle under the influence of 

alcohol (.08 but less .17), a first-degree misdemeanor, in violation of R.C. 4511.19; and 

reckless operation, a minor misdemeanor, in violation of R.C. 4511.20. The court 

dismissed the remaining charges on the state’s motion and set the matter for sentencing. 

{¶4} At sentencing, the state and Shead confirmed that they had stipulated to an 

agreed sentence. The court imposed the agreed sentence as follows: an indefinite 

sentence with a minimum term of ten years in prison on each count of aggravated 

vehicular homicide, to run consecutively to one another; an indefinite sentence with a 

minimum term of four years in prison on each count of aggravated vehicular assault, to 

run concurrently to one another and concurrently to the sentence on the aggravated 

vehicular homicide counts; and 180 days in jail on each of the counts of driving under

suspension and operating a vehicle under the influence, to run concurrently to each other 
3

Case No. 2023-P-0002

and to the sentences imposed on the aggravated vehicular homicide and aggravated 

vehicular assault counts. The court waived the fine for the reckless operation charge.

{¶5} In her sole assigned error, Shead argues:

{¶6} “The trial court’s sentence of Appellant in case number 2020 CR 00999 was 

contrary to law because R.C. 2967.271 (the "Reagan Tokes Act") is unconstitutional 

under the United States and Ohio Constitutions, both on its face and as applied.”

{¶7} Shead’s indefinite sentences were imposed pursuant to the Reagan Tokes 

Law. On appeal, Shead maintains that the Reagan Tokes Law is unconstitutional as 

applied and on its face because it violates the separation of powers, denies her due 

process rights, and violates her right to trial by jury. 

{¶8} Initially, we note that, because the trial court adopted the agreed sentence, 

R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) applies. That division provides that “[a] sentence imposed upon a 

defendant is not subject to review under this section if the sentence is authorized by law, 

has been recommended jointly by the defendant and the prosecution in the case, and is 

imposed by a sentencing judge.” “While R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) precludes review of agreed 

sentences, the supreme court has held that constitutional challenges are not within the 

scope of R.C. 2953.08, and therefore, the statute ‘does not preclude an appeal of a 

sentence on constitutional grounds.’” State v. Castro, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2022-04-

016, 2022-Ohio-4327, ¶ 12, quoting State v. Patrick, 164 Ohio St.3d 309, 2020-Ohio6803, ¶ 22.

{¶9} Accordingly, although we are not precluded from reviewing Shead’s 

constitutional challenges, Shead did not raise these challenges in the trial court, and her 

arguments on appeal are limited to review for plain error. State v. Shannon, 11th Dist. 
4

Case No. 2023-P-0002

Trumbull No. 2021-T-0049, 2022-Ohio-4160, ¶ 42, citing State v. Freetage, 11th Dist. 

Portage No. 2020-P-0083, 2021-Ohio-4050, ¶ 34 (“While an appellate court may hear a 

constitutional challenge that has not been raised below, such an issue is evaluated only 

for plain error.”). “‘When the court hears an appeal for plain error, it must presume the 

constitutionality of the statute at issue and will not invalidate it unless the challenger 

establishes that it is unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Shannon at ¶ 42, 

quoting Freetage at ¶ 34.

{¶10} With respect to the constitutionality of the Reagan Tokes Law, the Ohio 

Supreme Court recently decided State v. Hacker, Ohio Supreme Court Slip Opinion No. 

2023-Ohio-2535 (July 26, 2023). The Ohio Supreme Court determined that the Reagan 

Tokes Law does not facially offend the separation of powers doctrine, due process, or the 

right to jury trial, the same facial challenges Shead advances on appeal. Id. at ¶ 13, 28, 

34, 40. 

{¶11} Although Shead also claims to present as-applied constitutional challenges, 

this court has held that,”as-applied challenges are not ripe until application of the Reagan 

Tokes Law in actuality impacts the offender causing some specific harm.” State v. 

Walker, 2023-Ohio-1949, 217 N.E.3d 79, ¶ 81 (11th Dist.), citing State v. Tornstrom, 

2023-Ohio-763, 210 N.E.3d 712, ¶ 17-19 (11th Dist.); see also Hacker at ¶ 39

(“[c]onstitutional challenges to the application of the [Department of Rehabilitation and 

Correction’s] policies made under R.C. 2967.271(C) [(requiring a hearing to rebut 

presumption of release)] would be subject to review as as-applied challenges, should the 

facts of a specific case so warrant.”). 
5

Case No. 2023-P-0002

{¶12} Accordingly, Shead has failed to establish plain error in the court’s 

application of the Reagan Tokes Law. Therefore, Shead’s sole assigned error lacks 

merit.

{¶13} The judgment is affirmed. 

MARY JANE TRAPP, J.,

MATT LYNCH, J.,

concur.