Court Opinion

ID: 9399823
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-06 16:10:25.460856+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:40.112883
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Hampton, 2023-Ohio-1868.]

                                       COURT OF APPEALS
                                   MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO
                                   FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

 STATE OF OHIO                                 JUDGES:
                                               Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
         Plaintiff-Appellee                    Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
                                               Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
 -vs-
                                               Case No. CT2022-0081
 RODRIQUEZ HAMPTON

         Defendant-Appellant                   OPINION

 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS:                     Appeal from the Muskingum County Court
                                               of Common Pleas, Case No. CR2022-
                                               0293

 JUDGMENT:                                     Affirmed

 DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY:                       June 5, 2023

 APPEARANCES:

 For Plaintiff-Appellee                        For Defendant-Appellant

 RON WELCH                                     RODRIQUEZ HAMPTON
 Prosecuting Attorney                          Noble Correctional Institute
 Muskingum County, Ohio                        No. A805-185
                                               15708 McConnelsville Road
 JOHN CONNOR DEVER                             Caldwell, Ohio 43724-8902
 Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
 Muskingum County, Ohio
 27 North Fifth Street
 P.O. Box 189
 Zanesville, Ohio 43702
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0081                                                      2

Hoffman, J.
          {¶1}     Defendant-appellant Rodriquez S. Hampton appeals his convictions and

sentence entered by the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas, on one count of

trafficking in drugs, in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2), with an attendant forfeiture

specification; and one count of trafficking in drugs in the vicinity of a school, in violation

of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2), with attendant major drug offender, firearm, and forfeiture

specifications, following a negotiated plea. Plaintiff-appellee is the state of Ohio.

                                          STATEMENT OF THE CASE1

          {¶2}     On June 22, 2022, the Muskingum County Grand Jury indicted Appellant

on 24 felony and one misdemeanor drug-related offenses. All of the felony charges

carried various combinations of major drug offender, school, and forfeiture specifications.

Appellant entered a plea of not guilty to the Indictment at his arraignment on June 27,

2022. The trial court originally scheduled a jury trial for August 16, 2022, but continued

the matter until October 18, 2022, at the request of both parties.

          {¶3}     On September 22, 2022, Appellant filed a motion to suppress. The state

filed a response on September 27, 2022. The trial court scheduled a suppression hearing

for October 14, 2022. In the interim, the parties reached a plea agreement which resulted

in the suppression hearing being converted into a change of plea hearing.

          {¶4}     Appellant appeared before the trial court on October 14, 2022, for the

change of plea hearing. After the trial court conducted a Crim. R. 11 colloquy with

Appellant, Appellant withdrew his former pleas of not guilty and entered guilty pleas to

1   A Statement of the Facts is not necessary to our disposition of this Appeal.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0081                                                     3

one count of trafficking in drugs (cocaine), as amended, in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2),

with a forfeiture specification, a felony of the first degree (Count 3); and one count of

trafficking in drugs (fentanyl-related compound) in the vicinity of a school, in violation of

R.C. 2925.03(A)(2), with major drug offender, firearm, and forfeiture specifications, a

felony of the first degree (Count 25). As part of the plea agreement, the state dismissed

the remaining 23 counts of the Indictment as well as the major drug offender and firearm

specifications attached to Count 3.

       {¶5}   The trial court imposed the jointly recommended aggregate minimum

sentence of twenty (20) years with a maximum indefinite sentence of twenty-five and one

half (25 ½) years. The trial court ordered the sentences be served consecutive to the

term Appellant was currently serving in Muskingum County Common Pleas Case No.

CR2022-0057. The trial court further ordered the forfeiture of all of Appellant’s property

detailed in the Indictment. The trial court memorialized Appellant’s convictions and

sentence via Entry filed October 31, 2022.

       {¶6}   It is from his convictions and sentence Appellant appeals, raising the

following assignments of error:

              I. THE INDETERMINATE SENTENCES PROVIDED BY THE

       REAGAN TOKES LAW ARE EX POST FACTO VIOLATIONS WHEN

       APPLIED TO A FIRST OR SECOND DEGREE DRUG-RELATED

       OFFENSE.

              II. CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES IS [SIC] CONTRARY TO LAW.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0081                                                    4

              III. FORFEITURE OF PROPERTY VIOLATED THE EXCESSIVE

       FINES CLAUSE OF THE 8TH U.S.C.A.

                                             I

       {¶7}   In his first assignment of error, Appellant contends the indeterminate

sentences imposed pursuant to the Reagan Tokes Act were unconstitutional.

       {¶8}   For the reasons set forth in this Court's opinion in State v. Householder, 5th

Dist. Muskingum No. CT2021-0026, 2022-Ohio-1542, 2022 WL 1439978, we find the

Reagan Tokes Act is constitutional.

       {¶9}   Appellant’s first assignment of error is overruled.

                                                 II

       {¶10} In his second assignment of error, Appellant maintains his consecutive

sentences were contrary to law.

       {¶11} We review felony sentences using the standard of review set forth in R.C.

2953.08. State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, 59 N.E.3d 1231, ¶ 22.

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides an “appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise

modify a sentence that is appealed under this section or may vacate the sentence and

remand the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing. * * * if [the appellate court]

clearly and convincingly finds * * * the record does not support the sentencing court's

findings under [R.C. 2929.13(B) or (D), 2929.14(B)(2)(e) or (C)(4), or 2929.20(l)],” or “the

sentence is otherwise contrary to law.”

       {¶12} However, “[a]greed sentences, like the ones in this case, are generally not

reviewable on appeal * * *.” State v. Coffee, 2d Dist. Nos. 2022-CA-54, 2022-CA-55,

2023-Ohio-474, ¶ 11. R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) provides:
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0081                                                    5

              A sentence imposed upon a defendant is not subject to review under

       this section if the sentence is authorized by law, has been recommended

       jointly by the defendant and the prosecution in the case, and is imposed by

       a sentencing judge. R.C. 2953.08(D)(1).

       {¶13} Although “a sentence that is ‘contrary to law’ is appealable by a defendant

. . ., an agreed-upon sentence may not be if (1) both the defendant and the state agree

to the sentence, (2) the trial court imposes the agreed sentence, and (3) the sentence is

authorized by law.” Coffee, supra at ¶ 11 (Citations omitted). “If all three conditions are

met, the defendant may not appeal the sentence.” Id. (Internal quotations and citation

omitted).

       {¶14} Here, the trial court imposed the agreed upon sentence and the sentence

did not exceed the maximum sentence. As such, we find Appellant’s consecutive

sentences are not reviewable on appeal. Nonetheless, we find the sentences are not

contrary to law.

       {¶15} Appellant’s second assignment of error is overruled.

                                                III

       {¶16} In his final assignment of error, Appellant asserts the trial court’s order of

forfeiture constituted an excessive fine in violation of the Excessive Fines Clauses of the

United States and Ohio Constitutions. We disagree.

       {¶17} The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution states,

“[e]xcessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual

punishments inflicted.” Article I, Section 9, of the Ohio Constitution includes an identical
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0081                                                     6

prohibition. Criminal forfeiture of property as a form of punishment for a specified offense

constitutes a “fine” for purposes of both the Ohio Constitution and the United States

Constitution. State v. Hill, 70 Ohio St.3d 25, 635 N.E.2d 1248 (1994), syllabus.

“Accordingly, prior to entering an order of forfeiture, the trial court must make an

independent determination whether forfeiture of that property is an ‘excessive fine’

prohibited by the Excessive Fine Clauses of the Ohio and United States Constitutions.”

Id. A forfeiture will be considered an excessive fine only when, in light of all the relevant

circumstances, the forfeiture is grossly disproportionate to the offense committed. Id. at

34, 635 N.E.2d 1248.

       {¶18} “[W]hen [a] defendant enters a plea agreement calling for the forfeiture of

seized property, adherence to the statutory procedures [is] unnecessary.”           State v.

Compton, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109427, 2021-Ohio-3106, ¶ 19 (Citations omitted).

Stated another way, “[w]hen property is forfeited through a plea agreement, the forfeiture

is not effectuated by operation of the statutory provisions governing forfeiture of

contraband, but rather by the parties’ agreement.” Id. (Internal quotations and citation

omitted).

       {¶19} There is no indication, in the plea agreement or at the plea hearing,

Appellant objected to the proceedings or contested the value of the property listed in the

forfeiture specifications. At the plea hearing, Appellant stated he understood he would be

forfeiting “all items listed in any and all counts of the indictment.” Transcript of October

14, 2022 Change of Plea Hearing at pp. 12-13.

       {¶20} Because the forfeiture was effectuated by Appellant's negotiated plea

agreement with the state and not pursuant to R.C. Chapter 2981, the trial court was not
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0081                                                7

required to consider the statutory forfeiture proceedings at the time of sentencing. See

Compton, supra at ¶ 20. Upon this record, we find Appellant's due process protections

were not violated.

      {¶21} Appellant’s third assignment of error is overruled.

      {¶22} The judgment of the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas is

affirmed.

By: Hoffman, J.
Gwin, P.J. and
Baldwin, J. concur