Court Opinion

ID: 9882557
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-05 22:16:39.601854+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:00:27.887154
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Fadley, 2023-Ohio-3573.]

                                        COURT OF APPEALS
                                      LICKING COUNTY, OHIO
                                    FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                       JUDGES:
STATE OF OHIO                                  :       Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
                                               :       Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
                         Plaintiff-Appellee    :       Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J
                                               :
-vs-                                           :
                                               :       Case No. 2023 CA 00028
MARCUS D. FADLEY                               :
                                               :
                     Defendant-Appellant       :       OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:                           Criminal appeal from the Licking County
                                                   Court of Common Pleas, Case No.
                                                   2022CR511

JUDGMENT:                                          Affirmed in part; Reversed in part,
                                                   Remanded

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY:                            October 3, 2023

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee                             For Defendant-Appellant

JENNY WELLS                                        WILLIAM T. CRAMER
Prosecuting Attorney                               470 Olde Worthington Road, Suite 200
BY: KENNETH W. OSWALT                              Westerville, OH 43082
Assistant Prosecutor
20 S. Second Street, 4th Floor
Newark, OH 43055
[Cite as State v. Fadley, 2023-Ohio-3573.]

Gwin, P.J.

        {¶1}     Defendant-appellant Marcus D. Fadley [“Fadley”] appeals his conviction

and sentences after a No Contest plea in the Licking County Court of Common Pleas.

                                             Facts and Procedural History

        {¶2}     On August 11, 2022, Fadley was Indicted on three counts: (1) aggravated

drug possession involving methamphetamine in amounts equaling or exceeding five

times the bulk amount but less than fifty times the bulk amount in violation of R.C.

2925.11(A)/(C)(1)(c), a second-degree felony; (2) aggravated drug trafficking involving

methamphetamine in amounts equaling or exceeding five times the bulk amount but less

than fifty times the bulk amount in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2)/(C)(1)(d), a second-

degree felony; and (3) aggravated drug possession involving methamphetamine in

violation of R.C. 2925.11(A)/(C)(1)(a), a fifth-degree felony. The charges included

forfeiture specifications relating to $245 pursuant to R.C. 2941.1417(A).

        {¶3}     On September 23, 2022, Fadley filed two motions to suppress. One motion

challenged Fadley’s statements. [Docket Entry No. 20] and the other motion challenged

the traffic stop. [Docket Entry No. 19]. The court held an evidentiary hearing on the

motions on November 10, 2022, where the defense withdrew the first motion relating to

the statements. Supp. T., Nov. 10, 2022 at 5; Judgement Entry, filed Nov. 10, 2022.

[Docket Entry No. 37]. At the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing on Fadley’s motion to

suppress challenging the traffic stop, the trial judge took the matter under advisement.

Id.

        {¶4}     On January 27, 2023, the trial judge filed a Judgment Entry overruling

Fadley’s motion to suppress, [Docket Entry No. 46]. On January 30, 2023, Fadley filed a
Licking County, Case No. 2023 CA 00028                                                   3

motion to convert and cancel the jury trial to a change of plea hearing. [Docket Entry No.

47]. By Judgment Entry filed January 30, 2023, the trial judge scheduled a change of

plea hearing for March 22, 2023. [Docket Entry No. 48].

      {¶5}   On March 22, 2023, Fadley pled no contest to the charges and admitted the

forfeiture specification. The court merged counts one and two, and the state elected to

proceed on count two. The court then imposed a mandatory prison term of four to six

years on count two and a consecutive term of one year on count three. The court waived

the fines, but imposed costs. The court also imposed mandatory post release control of

eighteen months to three years. Finally, the court granted Fadley 233 days of jail credits.

      {¶6}   On March 23, 2023, the written “No Contest Plea” with respect to Counts 1

and 2 and the written No Contest Plea with respect to Count 3 were filed. [Docket Entry

No. 50]. Each document was signed by Fadley, his attorney and the prosecuting attorney.

                                      Assignments of Error

      {¶7}   Fadley raises two Assignments of Error,

      {¶8}   “I. APPELLANT'S SENTENCE IS CONTRARY TO LAW BECAUSE THE

PRISON TERM IMPOSED IN THE SENTENCING ENTRY IS DIFFERENT FROM THE

PRISON TERM IMPOSED DURING THE SENTENCING HEARING.

      {¶9}   “II.   INDEFINITE PRISON TERMS IMPOSED UNDER THE REAGAN

TOKES LAW VIOLATE THE JURY TRIAL GUARANTEE, THE DOCTRINE OF

SEPARATION OF POWERS, AND DUE PROCESS PRINCIPLES UNDER THE

FEDERAL AND STATE CONSTITUTIONS.”
Licking County, Case No. 2023 CA 00028                                                   4

                                                 I.

      {¶10} In his First Assignment of Error, Fadley argues that his sentence is contrary

to law because the sentence pronounced on the record in Fadley's presence differs from

that stated in the judgment entry of sentence.

                                Standard of Appellate Review

      {¶11} “‘When a court’s judgment is based on an erroneous interpretation of the

law, an abuse-of-discretion standard is not appropriate. See Swartzentruber v. Orrville

Grace Brethren Church, 163 Ohio App.3d 96, 2005-Ohio-4264, 836 N.E.2d 619, ¶ 6;

Huntsman v. Aultman Hosp., 5th Dist. No. 2006 CA 00331, 2008-Ohio-2554, 2008 WL

2572598, ¶ 50.’ Med. Mut. of Ohio v. Schlotterer, 122 Ohio St.3d 181, 2009-Ohio-2496,

909 N.E.2d 1237, ¶ 13.” State v. Fugate, 117 Ohio St.3d 261, 2008-Ohio-856, 883 N.E.2d

440, ¶6.

      {¶12} Because the assignment of error involves the interpretation of a statute,

which is a question of law, we review the trial court’s decision de novo. Med. Mut. of Ohio

v. Schlotterer, 122 Ohio St.3d 181, 2009-Ohio-2496, 909 N.E.2d 1237, ¶ 13; Accord,

State v. Pariag, 137 Ohio St.3d 81, 2013-Ohio-4010, 998 N.E.2d 401, ¶ 9; Hurt v. Liberty

Township, Delaware County, OH, 5th Dist. Delaware No. 17 CAI 05 0031, 2017-Ohio-

7820, ¶ 31.

           Issue for Appellate Review: Whether Fadley’s sentence is contrary to law.

      {¶13} At the March 22, 2023 sentencing hearing, Fadley was informed by the trial

judge as follows,

               I find that Counts 1 and 2 merge. The State’s elected to proceed

      with sentencing on Count 2. I’ll impose a term of 4 to 5 years in the state
Licking County, Case No. 2023 CA 00028                                                    5

       penitentiary on Count 2. I’ll impose a 1 year sentence on Count 3. I’ll order

       those to run consecutively with each other for a 5 to 6 year term in the state

       penitentiary….

Plea and Sentencing T., Mar 22, 2023 at 20. (Emphasis added).

       {¶14} However, the trial court’s Judgment Entry of Sentencing filed March 23,

2023, states as follows,

              The Court finds that Count 1 and 2 merge for purposes of sentencing,

       and the State of Ohio elects to have the Defendant sentenced on Count 2.

       It is therefore, ordered that the Defendant serve an indeterminate

       mandatory prison term of four (4) to six (6) years on Count 2 and a stated

       prison term of one (1) years [sic.] on Count 3 in the state penitentiary.

       Counts 2 and 3 are ordered to run consecutively with each other for a five

       (5) to seven (7) year indeterminate prison term.

       {¶15} The parties agree that Fadley’s sentence is contrary to law; however, they

disagree as to the appropriate remedy. Fadley asks this Court to order the trial court to

issue a nunc pro tunc sentencing entry conforming his sentence in accordance with the

sentence imposed in his presence, i.e. a sentence of four to five years on Count 2 with

an aggregate sentence of five to six years. However, the state points out that the trial

court’s pronouncement of sentence in open court was itself contrary to law due to a

mathematical error.

       {¶16} Fadley was sentenced on Count 2, a felony of the second degree. Pursuant

to R.C. 2929.14(A)(2)(a) “the prison term shall be an indefinite prison term with a stated

minimum term selected by the court of two, three, four, five, six, seven, or eight years and
Licking County, Case No. 2023 CA 00028                                                 6

a maximum term that is determined pursuant to section 2929.144 of the Revised Code.”

The trial court selected a four-year minimum sentence on Count 2 in Fadley’s presence

and in it sentencing entry. The trial judge further imposed a one-year sentence on Count

3, to be served consecutively. Thus, the aggregate minimum sentence is four years plus

one year for a total minimum sentence of five years. The trial judge correctly stated the

aggregate minimum sentence during the sentencing hearing and in his sentencing entry.

      {¶17} Pursuant to R.C. 2929.144(B)(1), Fadley’s maximum sentence on Count 2

is four years plus fifty per cent of four years for a maximum sentence on Count 2 of 6

years. The trial court incorrectly stated during the sentencing hearing that the maximum

sentence for Count 2 was five years. The trial judge correctly stated the 6-year maximum

sentence on Count 2 in the sentencing entry.

      {¶18} Because Fadley was being sentenced for more than one felony, one of

which was a felony of the second degree, and because the court determined that the

sentences for both felonies would run consecutively, R.C. 2929.144(B)(2) provides the

formula for determining the maximum aggregate sentence in this case. It states,

             (2) If the offender is being sentenced for more than one felony, if one

      or more of the felonies is a qualifying felony of the first or second degree,

      and if the court orders that some or all of the prison terms imposed are to

      be served consecutively, the court shall add all of the minimum terms

      imposed on the offender under division (A)(1)(a) or (2)(a) of section 2929.14

      of the Revised Code for a qualifying felony of the first or second degree that

      are to be served consecutively and all of the definite terms of the felonies

      that are not qualifying felonies of the first or second degree that are to be
Licking County, Case No. 2023 CA 00028                                                     7

       served consecutively, and the maximum term shall be equal to the total of

       those terms so added by the court plus fifty per cent of the longest minimum

       term or definite term for the most serious felony being sentenced.

Emphasis added.

       {¶19} Thus, the maximum aggregate term in the case at bar is: the minimum term

of four years on Count 2 plus the minimum term of one year on Count 3 equaling 5 years

plus 50% of the longest term, i.e. the 4-year sentence on Count 2, equals an aggregate

maximum term of 7 years. Thus, Fadley’s maximum aggregate sentence is an indefinite

sentence of 5 to 7 years. In the case at bar, the trial court correctly stated during the

sentencing hearing that the maximum sentence for Count 2 was five years, but the court

incorrectly stated the maximum aggregate sentence was 5 to 6 years.

       {¶20} Crim.R. 43 requires the defendant’s presence at every stage of trial,

including the imposition of sentence. Crim.R. 43(A)(1). Thus, a trial court’s sentence is

contrary to law when it imposes a sentence in the sentencing entry different from the

sentence announced at the sentencing hearing. State v. Railey, 1st Dist. Hamilton No.

C–120029, 2012–Ohio–4233, ¶ 21, 977 N.E.2d 703; State v. Jordan, 10th Dist. Franklin

No. 05AP–1330, 2006–Ohio–5208, ¶ 48.

       {¶21} As the sentence announced in Fadley’s presence was contrary to R.C.

2929.144(B), the trial court failed to notify Fadley at the sentencing hearing of his correct

sentence. State v. Wilson, 5th Dist. Licking No. 22 CA 00024, 2023-Ohio-419, ¶50.

Because the trial court imposed a sentence different from that announced in Fadley’s

presence at the sentencing hearing, we sustain Fadley’s First Assignment of Error.
Licking County, Case No. 2023 CA 00028                                                    8

                                                II.

       {¶22} In his Second Assignment of Error, Fadley argues his indefinite prison terms

imposed pursuant to the Reagan Tokes Act, codified in R.C. 2967.271, violates his right

to a jury trial, the doctrine of separation of powers, and due process principals under the

federal and state constitutions.

       {¶23} In State v. Hacker, Slip Op. No. 2023-Ohio-2535, 2023 WL 4750237, the

Ohio Supreme Court held: 1). R.C. 2967.271 does not violate the separation of powers

doctrine; 2). R.C. 2967.271 does not violate a defendant’s right to a jury trial; 3). R.C.

2967.271 is not void for vagueness, and 4). R.C. 2967.271 does not violate a defendant’s

procedural due process rights.

       {¶24} Fadley’s Second Assignment of Error is overruled.

       {¶25} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of

Licking County, Ohio, is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the trial court

for resentencing in the presence of Fadley in accordance with Crim.R. 43(A)(1).

By Gwin, P.J.

Hoffman, J., and

Baldwin, J., concur