Court Opinion

ID: 9390257
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-27 14:07:56.512478+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:33.168393
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Fisher, 2023-Ohio-1372.]

                               COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                              EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                 COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE OF OHIO,                                     :

                 Plaintiff-Appellee,               :
                                                            No. 111953
                 v.                                :

BRANDON FISHER,                                    :

                 Defendant-Appellant.              :

                                JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

                 JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
                 RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: April 27, 2023

          Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
                              Case No. CR-21-657553-A

                                             Appearances:

                 Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
                 Attorney, and Steven N. Szelagiewicz, Assistant
                 Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

                 Valore & Gordillo LLP and Dean M. Valore, for appellant.

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, P.J.:

                   Defendant-appellant Brandon Fisher (“Fisher”) argues that the

Reagan Tokes Law is unconstitutional and, therefore, his sentence imposed under
the law is invalid. For the following reasons, we find that the Reagan Tokes Law is

not unconstitutional and affirm the lower court’s ruling.

Factual and Procedural History

              On March 26, 2021, in Cuyahoga C. P. No. CR-21-657553-A, a

Cuyahoga County Grand Jury indicted Fisher on 12 counts of rape in violation of

R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b); six counts of gross sexual imposition in violation of

R.C. 2907.05(A)(4); six counts of kidnapping in violation of R.C. 2905.01(A)(4); two

counts of endangering children in violation of R.C. 2919.22(B)(1); one count of

driving while under the influence in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a); one count of

driving while under the influence in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(g); one count of

physical control of vehicle while under the influence in violation of

R.C. 4511.194(B)(1); and one count of motor vehicle offenses in violation of

R.C. 4510.11(A).     The rape, kidnapping, and endangering children counts all

included furthermore clauses, and the kidnapping counts included a sexual-

motivation specification. The charges arose from incidents that allegedly occurred

between Fisher and his minor daughter. On April 22, 2021, Fisher pleaded not guilty

to the indictment.

              From May 2021 through February 2022, the trial court continued the

matter pursuant to COVID-19 protocols. On May 12, 2022, the trial court conducted

a plea hearing where Fisher withdrew his prior pleas and pleaded guilty to the

following: amended Counts 2, 9, and 22, rape in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(2);

Counts 3, 11, and 23, gross sexual imposition in violation of R.C. 2907.05(A)(4);
Count 25, endangering children in violation of R.C. 2919.22(B)(1); Count 27, driving

while under the influence of alcohol or drugs in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a);

and Count 29, physical control of vehicle while under the influence in violation of

R.C. 4511.194(B)(1). The remaining counts were nolled. The trial court instructed

Fisher that Counts 2, 9, 22, and 25 were qualifying offenses under the Reagan Tokes

Law, and Fisher’s counsel objected to the constitutionality of the Reagan Tokes Law.

The trial court referred Fisher to the probation department for a presentence

investigation and to the court’s psychiatric clinic for a recommendation regarding

disposition.

               On September 7, 2022, the trial court held a sentencing hearing.

Fisher’s counsel again objected to the constitutionality of the Reagan Tokes Law.

The trial court ordered Fisher to serve ten years each on Counts 2 and 9; five years

each on Counts 22 and 25; 36 months each on Counts 3, 11, and 23; and 180 days on

Count 27. Count 29 merged with Count 27 for purposes of sentencing. The court

further ordered that the sentences on Counts 2, 22, and 25 run consecutive to each

other and concurrent to the sentences in Counts 3, 9, 11, 23, and 27. The sentences

on Counts 3, 9, 11, 23, and 27 were to run concurrent to each other. Pursuant to the

Reagan Tokes Law, the court imposed an indefinite sentence of 10 to 15 years on

Count 2. The total stated prison term was 20-25 years. The court classified Fisher

as a Tier III sex offender/child offender and imposed postrelease control.
               On September 16, 2022, Fisher filed a timely notice of appeal

presenting a single assignment of error for our review: The Reagan-Tokes Law is

unconstitutional on its face.

Legal Analysis

               In his sole assignment of error, Fisher argues that the Reagan Tokes

Law is unconstitutional and, therefore, his sentence imposed under that law is

invalid. Specifically, Fisher argues that his indefinite sentence under the Reagan

Tokes Law, enacted under S.B. 201 and R.C. 2901.011, is unconstitutional because it

violates his constitutional right to a jury trial, the separation-of-powers doctrine,

and his due-process rights. Fisher also argues that because his trial counsel failed

to object to the imposition of an indefinite sentence, his appeal should be reviewed

for plain error. The state argues that this court found the Reagan Tokes Law

constitutional in State v. Delvallie, 2022-Ohio-470, 185 N.E.3d 536 (8th Dist.). The

state further contends that Fisher objected to the imposition of indefinite sentences

under the Reagan Tokes Law but did not object to the constitutionality of the law

and, therefore, forfeited his constitutional challenges.

               A review of the transcripts from the plea and sentencing hearings

demonstrates Fisher’s counsel objected to the constitutionality of the Reagan Tokes

Law at both hearings:

      DEFENSE COUNSEL: Right. And I would just, prior to getting to
      that, obviously note our objection to Reagan Tokes as being
      unconstitutional under both the constitutions of the State of Ohio and
      the United States of America.
      THE COURT: Defense counsel, I’ll note your objection to any
      Reagan Tokes indefinite maximum sentence being given to your client
      on Count 2, the F1 rape, Count 9, the F1 rape, Count 22, the F1 rape,
      and Count 25, the F2, endangering children.

Plea hearing, May 12, 2022, tr. 14-15.

      DEFENSE COUNSEL: Your Honor, just [as] a matter of
      housekeeping in regards to the Reagan Tokes count, we would ask the
      Court to note our objection as that being unconstitutional at this time.

Sentencing hearing, Sept 7, 2022, tr. 39-40. Where Fisher’s trial counsel raised an

objection to the constitutionality of the Reagan Tokes Law, we are not limited to

reviewing for plain error.

                This court’s en banc decision in Delvallie overruled Fisher’s

challenges to S.B. 201 that are presented in this appeal.          Therefore, we are

constrained to follow Delvallie, and find that the Reagan Tokes Law is not

unconstitutional. We must find that Fisher’s sentence pursuant to the Reagan Tokes

Law was not a violation of his constitutional rights and, thus, his assignment of error

is overruled.

                Judgment affirmed.

      It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.

      The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

      It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the

common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution.
      A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, PRESIDING JUDGE

LISA B. FORBES, J., and
EMANUELLA D. GROVES, J., CONCUR

N.B. Judge Mary Eileen Kilbane joined the dissents by Judge Lisa B. Forbes and
Administrative Judge Anita Laster Mays in Delvallie and would have found the
Reagan Tokes Law unconstitutional.

Judge Lisa B. Forbes is constrained to apply Delvallie. For a full explanation,
see State v. Delvallie, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109315, 2022-Ohio-470 (Forbes, J.,
dissenting).

Judge Emanuella D. Groves concurred with the opinions of Judge Lisa B. Forbes
(dissenting) and Administrative Judge Anita Laster Mays (concurring in part and
dissenting in part) in Delvallie and would have found the Reagan Tokes Law
unconstitutional.