Court Opinion

ID: 9890795
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-16 15:08:06.663928+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:22.905868
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Marshall, 2023-Ohio-3751.]

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

STATE OF OHIO,
                                                          CASE NO. 1-22-70
       PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

       v.

CHARLES E. MARSHALL,                                      OPINION

       DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

                   Appeal from Allen County Common Pleas Court
                            Trial Court No. CR2022 0156

                                      Judgment Affirmed

                            Date of Decision: October 16, 2023

APPEARANCES:

        Chima R. Ekeh for Appellant

        John R. Willamowski, Jr. for Appellee
Case No. 1-22-70

MILLER, P.J.

          {¶1} Defendant-appellant, Charles E. Marshall (“Marshall”), appeals the

November 3, 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 June 16, 2022, the Allen County Grand Jury indicted Marshall on

two counts: Count One of aggravated robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.01(A), (C),

a first-degree felony, and Count Two of felonious assault in violation of R.C.

2903.11(A)(2), (D)(1)(a), a second-degree felony. Each of the counts contained a

firearm specification pursuant to R.C. 2941.145(A). On June 27, 2022, Marshall

filed a written plea of not guilty.

          {¶3} A jury trial was held on September 20-23, 2022. At the conclusion of

the trial, the jury found Marshall guilty of both counts and the attendant firearm

specifications. The trial court accepted the jury’s verdicts and found Marshall

guilty.

          {¶4} On October 14, 2022, Marshall filed an objection and opposition to the

imposition of any indefinite sentence pursuant to the Reagan Tokes Law. At the

sentencing hearing held on November 3, 2022, the trial court sentenced Marshall to

an indefinite term of a minimum of four years to a maximum of six years in prison

on each of Counts One and Two to run concurrently to one another. The trial court

                                          -2-
Case No. 1-22-70

also imposed a sentence of three years in prison for the firearm specifications

associated with Counts One and Two, respectively. Further, the trial court ordered

the sentences imposed for the specifications be served consecutively to each other

and consecutively to the sentences imposed on Counts One and Two. Later that

day, the trial court filed its judgment entry of sentence.

       {¶5} Marshall filed a notice of appeal on November 14, 2022. He raises three

assignments of error for our review.

                             First Assignment of Error

       Marshall’s indefinite sentence pursuant to R.C. 2967.271 (The
       Reagan Tokes Law) violates the right to a jury trial as protected
       by the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and
       Article 1, Section 5 of the Ohio Constitution. (Tr. Sentencing, pg.
       16, tab 14-22)

                           Second Assignment of Error

       R.C. 2967.271 (The Reagan Tokes Law) unconstitutionally
       violates the separation of powers doctrine of the United States and
       Ohio Constitution. (Tr. Sentencing, pg. 16, tab 14-22)

                            Third Assignment of Error

       R.C. 2967.271 (The Reagan Tokes Law) violates the right to due
       process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
       Constitution, and Article 1, Section 16, of the Ohio Constitution.
       (Tr. Sentencing, pg. 16, tab 14-22)

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

contends the indefinite sentence of incarceration imposed pursuant to the Reagan

                                          -3-
Case No. 1-22-70

Tokes Law violates his right to a trial by jury, runs afoul of the separation-of-powers

doctrine, and violates his right to due process.

         {¶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, 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

                                         -4-
Case No. 1-22-70

Marshall 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 Marshall’s assignments of error not well-taken.

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

       {¶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-