Court Opinion

ID: 9375369
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-27 16:06:50.623837+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:58.199149
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Etgen, 2023-Ohio-564.]

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

STATE OF OHIO,

        PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,                               CASE NO. 9-21-41

        v.

DON ETGEN,                                                OPINION

        DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

                 Appeal from Marion County Common Pleas Court
                            Trial Court No. 20-CR-116

                                      Judgment Affirmed

                           Date of Decision: February 27, 2023

APPEARANCES:

        W. Joseph Edwards for Appellant

        Raymond A. Grogan, Jr. for Appellee
Case No. 9-21-41

MILLER, P.J.

       {¶1} Defendant-appellant, Don Etgen, appeals the October 29, 2021

judgment of sentence of the Marion County Court of Common Pleas. For the

reasons that follow, we affirm.

                            Facts & Procedural History

       {¶2} On May 6, 2020, the Marion County Grand Jury issued a 28-count

indictment charging Etgen with various sexually-oriented offenses. On September

13, 2021, Etgen pleaded guilty to one count of attempted rape, two counts of

pandering obscenity involving a minor or impaired person, and one count of gross

sexual imposition. The trial court dismissed the remaining counts of the indictment.

       {¶3} On October 29, 2021, the trial court sentenced Etgen as follows: 7-10.5

years in prison for attempted rape, 7-10.5 years in prison for each count of pandering

obscenity involving a minor or impaired person, and 12 months in prison for gross

sexual imposition. The trial court ordered that Etgen’s prison terms be served

consecutively, resulting in an aggregate sentence of 22-25.5 years’ imprisonment.

The trial court filed its judgment entry of sentence on October 29, 2021.

       {¶4} On November 29, 2021, Etgen filed a notice of appeal. He raises the

following two assignments of error for our review:

                            Assignment of Error No. I

       The Revised Code’s indefinite sentence for the first- and second-
       degree qualifying felonies violates the Doctrine of Separation of

                                         -2-
Case No. 9-21-41

       Powers inherent in the Constitutions of the United States and the
       State of Ohio.

                            Assignment of Error No. II

       The Revised Code’s indefinite sentence for the first- and second-
       degree qualifying felonies violates the Due Course of Law Clause
       of the Ohio Constitution and the Due Process Clause of the United
       States Constitution.

       {¶5} In his two assignments of error, which we will address together, Etgen

contends that his indefinite sentences for attempted rape and pandering obscenity

involving a minor or impaired person are contrary to law because the indefinite-

sentencing provisions of the Reagan Tokes Law are unconstitutional. Specifically,

Etgen claims that these provisions violate the separation-of-powers doctrine and

infringe on his right to due process.

       {¶6} 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,

                                        -3-
Case No. 9-21-41

2020-Ohio-5048, ¶ 22; State v. Wolfe, 3d Dist. Union No. 14-21-16, 2022-Ohio-96,

¶ 21. Thus, on the basis of Ball and our prior precedent, we find no merit to Etgen’s

arguments. Etgen’s assignments of error are overruled.

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

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

of Common Pleas.

                                                                Judgment Affirmed

WILLAMOWSKI and ZIMMERMAN, J.J., concur.

/jlr

                                         -4-