Court Opinion

ID: 9890797
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-16 15:08:08.189166+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:23.013475
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Houke, 2023-Ohio-3752.]

                      IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                          THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                               ALLEN COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,
                                                         CASE NO. 1-23-15
       PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

       v.

ROLLAND HOUKE,                                           O P I N I ON

       DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

                  Appeal from Allen County Common Pleas Court
                           Trial Court No. CR2022 0325

                                     Judgment Affirmed

                           Date of Decision: October 16, 2023

APPEARANCES:

        F. Stephen Chamberlain for Appellant

        John R. Willamowski, Jr. for Appellee
Case No. 1-23-15

MILLER, P.J.

       {¶1} Defendant-appellant, Rolland S. Houke (“Houke”), appeals the

February 16, 2023 judgment of sentence of the Allen County Court of Common

Pleas. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

                           Facts and Procedural History

       {¶2} On December 15, 2022, the Allen County Grand Jury indicted Houke

on two counts: Count One of aggravated burglary in violation of R.C.

2911.11(A)(1), (B), a first-degree felony, and Count Two of burglary in violation of

R.C. 2911.12(A)(1), (D), a second-degree felony. Houke appeared for arraignment

on December 22, 2022 and entered pleas of not guilty.

       {¶3} On January 12, 2023, pursuant to a negotiated-plea agreement, Houke

withdrew his not guilty plea and entered a guilty plea to Count Two. The trial court

accepted Houke’s guilty plea and found him guilty of Count Two.                At the

recommendation of the State, the trial court dismissed Count One.

       {¶4} At a sentencing hearing held on February 16, 2023, the trial court

sentenced Houke to an indefinite term of a minimum of four years to a maximum

of six years in prison on Count Two. Later that day, the trial court filed its judgment

entry of sentence.

                                         -2-
Case No. 1-23-15

       {¶5} Houke filed a notice of appeal on March 14, 2023. He raises three

assignments of error for our review.

                             First Assignment of Error

       The Reagan Tokes Law, 132 GA Senate Bill 201 is
       unconstitutional because it violates the separation-of-powers
       doctrine.

                            Second Assignment of Error

       The Reagan Tokes Law, 132 GA Senate Bill 201 is
       unconstitutional because it violates the right to due process.

                            Third Assignment of Error

       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 address together, Houke

contends the indefinite sentence of incarceration imposed pursuant to the Reagan

Tokes Law is unconstitutional as it violates the separation-of-powers doctrine and

violates his constitutional rights to due process and to a trial by jury.

       {¶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

                                          -3-
Case No. 1-23-15

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, we also held that the remaining

constitutional issue under Reagan Tokes related to a jury trial is unavailing. Id. at ¶

61-63.

         {¶8} Recently, in State v. Hacker, ___ Ohio St.3d ____, 2023-Ohio-2535,

the Supreme Court of Ohio addressed the constitutional validity of the Reagan

Tokes Law and held that it does not intrude upon the separation-of-powers doctrine,

does not implicate the offender’s right to a jury trial, and does not violate the

offender’s due-process rights. Id. at ¶ 25, 28, 40. Furthermore, in State v. Beck, 3d

Dist. Allen No. 1-22-80, 2023-Ohio-3008, this court addressed the same arguments

Houke raises in the instant appeal and, pursuant to the Supreme Court of Ohio’s

decision in Hacker, found the arguments unavailing. Beck at ¶ 8. See also State v.

Lemaster, 3d Dist. Union No. 14-23-10, 2023-Ohio-3427, ¶ 14.

         {¶9} Thus, pursuant to the Supreme Court of Ohio’s decision in Hacker and

our decision in Beck, we find Houke’s assignments of error not well-taken.

         {¶10} Houke’s assignments of error are overruled.

                                         -4-
Case No. 1-23-15

       {¶11} 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 and HESS, J.J., concur.

** Judge Michael D. Hess of the Fourth District Court of Appeals, sitting by
Assignment of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Ohio.

/hls

                                       -5-