[Cite as State v. Day, 2022-Ohio-4064.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

ALLEN COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,

 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 1-22-32

 v.

DAREN K. DAY, O P I N I O N

 DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appeal from Allen County Common Pleas Court

Trial Court No. CR2021 0416

Judgment Affirmed

Date of Decision: November 14, 2022 

APPEARANCES:

F. Stephen Chamberlain for Appellant

Jana E. Emerick for Appellee
Case No. 1-22-32

-2-

MILLER, J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Daren K. Day, appeals the April 21, 2022

judgment of sentence of the Allen County Court of Common Pleas. For the reasons 

that follow, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

{¶2} On January 13, 2022, the Allen County Grand Jury indicted Day on 

three counts: Counts One and Two of grand theft of a motor vehicle in violation of 

R.C. 2913.02(A)(1), (B)(5), fourth-degree felonies; and Count Three of robbery in 

violation of R.C. 2911.02(A)(2), (B), a second-degree felony. Count Three also 

included a repeat violent offender (“RVO”) specification pursuant to R.C. 

2941.149(A). On January 19, 2022, Day entered a written plea of not guilty.

{¶3} Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, on March 3, 2022, Day entered 

guilty pleas to all counts in the indictment. In exchange, the State agreed to 

recommend dismissal of the RVO specification associated with Count Three. The 

trial court accepted Day’s guilty plea and found him guilty of Counts One, Two, 

and Three. The following day, the trial court filed its judgment entry of conviction.

{¶4} At a sentencing hearing held on April 21, 2022, the trial court 

determined Counts Two and Three merged for sentencing. The State elected for 

Day to be sentenced on Count Three. The defense objected to the imposition of an 

indefinite prison sentence for Count Three under the Reagan Tokes Law on the 
Case No. 1-22-32

-3-

grounds of unconstitutionality. The trial court overruled the motion and sentenced 

Day to 12 months in prison on Count One and an indefinite term of 3 years to 4 1⁄2 

years in prison on Count Three to be served concurrently with the prison term 

imposed on Count One. The trial court filed its judgment entry of sentence the same

day. 

{¶5} On May 19, 2022, Day filed his notice of appeal. He raises three 

assignments of error for our review.

Assignment of Error No. I

The Reagan Tokes Law, 132 GA Senate Bill 201 is 

unconstitutional because it violates the separation-of-powers 

doctrine.

Assignment of Error No. II

The Reagan Tokes Law, 132 GA Senate Bill 201 is 

unconstitutional because it violates right to due process.

Assignment of Error No. III

The Reagan Tokes Law, 132 GA Senate Bill 201 is 

unconstitutional because it violates the constitutional right to a 

jury trial.

{¶6} In the three assignments of error, which we will address together, Day 

contends that the indefinite sentence of incarceration imposed on Count Three 

pursuant to the Reagan Tokes Law is unconstitutional as it violates the separationof-powers doctrine and violates his constitutional rights to due process and to a trial 

by jury.
Case No. 1-22-32

-4-

{¶7} As this Court has noted in State v. Ball, 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-21-16, 

2022-Ohio-1549, challenges to the Reagan Tokes Law do not present a matter of 

first impression to 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 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. Further, for the reasons stated in Ball, the remaining constitutional issue under 

Reagan Tokes related to a jury trial is also unavailing. Id. at ¶ 61-63.

{¶8} Thus, on the basis of Ball and our prior precedent, this Court finds no 

merit to Day’s contentions. The three assignments of error are overruled.

{¶9} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant herein in the 

particulars assigned and argued, we affirm the judgment of the Allen County Court 

of Common Pleas.

Judgment Affirmed

ZIMMERMAN, P.J. and SHAW, J., concur.

/jlr