Court Opinion

ID: 9384423
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-03 19:06:10.061767+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:53.343133
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Rice, 2023-Ohio-979.]

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

STATE OF OHIO,

        PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,                                   CASE NO. 9-22-14

        v.

NATHANIEL RICE,                                               OPINION

        DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

                  Appeal from Marion County Common Pleas Court
                            Trial Court No. 21-CR-567

                                          Judgment Affirmed

                             Date of Decision: March 27, 2023

APPEARANCES:

        Thomas A. Gjostein for Appellant

        Raymond A. Grogan, Jr. for Appellee
Case No. 9-22-14

MILLER, P.J.

       {¶1} Defendant-appellant, Nathaniel Rice, appeals the March 18, 2022

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

reasons that follow, we affirm.

                            Facts & Procedural History

       {¶2} On December 22, 2021, the Marion County Grand Jury indicted Rice

on five counts: Count One of possession of cocaine in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A),

a first-degree felony; Count Two of trafficking in cocaine in violation of R.C.

2925.03(A)(2), a first-degree felony; Count Three of possession of a fentanyl-

related compound in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), a second-degree felony; Count

Four of trafficking in a fentanyl-related compound in violation of R.C.

2925.03(A)(2), a second-degree felony; and Count Five of having weapons while

under disability in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(3), a third-degree felony. On

December 27, 2021, Rice appeared for arraignment and pleaded not guilty to the

counts of the indictment.

       {¶3} A change-of-plea hearing was held on February 14, 2022, at which Rice

withdrew his previous not-guilty pleas to Counts Three and Five and pleaded guilty

to those offenses. The State entered a nolle prosequi with respect to the remaining

counts of the indictment. At sentencing on March 18, 2022, the trial court sentenced

Rice to 7-10.5 years in prison on Count Three and 24 months in prison on Count

                                        -2-
Case No. 9-22-14

Five. The trial court ordered that these sentences be served concurrently. The trial

court filed its judgment entry of sentence on March 18, 2022.

       {¶4} On March 28, 2022, Rice filed a notice of appeal. He raises the

following assignment of error for our review:

                               Assignment of Error

       Appellant’s sentence under the Ohio Revised Code enactment of
       S.B. 201, commonly named the Reagan Tokes Law, is illegal and
       invalid for being a statute that is facially unconstitutional with its
       indefinite sentencing mechanisms which violate the Separation of
       Powers doctrine and Due Process provisions of both the
       Constitutions of the United States and the State of Ohio.

       {¶5} In his assignment of error, Rice contends that his indefinite sentence for

possession of a fentanyl-related compound is contrary to law because the indefinite-

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

Rice 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

                                         -3-
Case No. 9-22-14

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

arguments. Rice’s assignment of error is 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-