Court Opinion

ID: 9882586
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-05 22:17:03.477963+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:00:31.599834
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Carrillo, 2023-Ohio-3264.]

                                            COURT OF APPEALS
                                        DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO
                                        FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

    STATE OF OHIO                                   :   JUDGES:
                                                    :
                                                    :   Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
           Plaintiff-Appellee                       :   Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
                                                    :   Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
    -vs-                                            :
                                                    :   Case Nos. 22CAA090062
                                                    :             22CAA090063
    EMANUEL CARRILLO                                :
                                                    :
                                                    :
           Defendant-Appellant                      :   OPINION

  CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:                              Appeal from the Delaware County Court
                                                        of Common Pleas, Case Nos.
                                                        21CRI20723 and 22CRI010016

  JUDGMENT:                                             AFFIRMED

  DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY:                               September 13, 2023

  APPEARANCES:

    For Plaintiff-Appellee:                             For Defendant-Appellant:

    MELISSA A. SCHIFFEL                                 WILLIAM T. CRAMER
    DELAWARE CO. PROSECUTOR                             470 Olde Worthington Road, Ste. 200
    KATHERYN L. MUNGER                                  Westerville, OH 43082
    145 North Union St., 3rd Floor
    Delaware, OH 43015
Delaware County, Case Nos. 22CAA090062 and 22CAA090063                                   2

Delaney, J.

       {¶1} Appellant Emanuel Carrillo appeals from the August 10, 2023 Judgment

Entry of Prison Sentence of the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas. Appellee is

the state of Ohio.

       {¶2}    The instant cases are consolidated [5th District Delaware Nos.

22CA090062 and 22CA090063] and arise from two cases in the Delaware County Court

of Common Pleas, case nos. 21CR-I-12-0723 and 22CR-I-01-0016.

                        FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

       {¶3} This case arose from a traffic stop of a truck with faulty license-plate

illumination. A K-9 sniff at the scene, and a subsequent search of hidden compartments

in the vehicle, yielded large amounts of methamphetamine, cocaine, fentanyl, and cash.

       {¶4} The following facts are adduced from the record of the suppression hearing

and appellant’s change-of-plea and sentencing hearing.

                     Unilluminated license plate leads to traffic stop

       {¶5} At the suppression hearing, the sole issue was the officer’s decision to make

the traffic stop.

       {¶6} On December 16, 2021, around 3:11 a.m., Ptl. Weirich of the Delaware

Police Department was sitting stationary in a parking lot on U.S. 23, in uniform and a

marked vehicle. Weirich has 11 years’ experience as a patrol officer and his duties

include monitoring traffic. He noticed a black Chevy Silverado northbound on U.S. 23

with a dark-tinted passenger window. As the vehicle passed him, Weirich couldn’t read

the license plate and therefore could not determine whether the tint level was a violation.
Delaware County, Case Nos. 22CAA090062 and 22CAA090063                                 3

        {¶7} Weirich caught up to the vehicle to check the plate but was unable to read

letters and numbers because the plate was poorly illuminated. T. 11. As he followed the

vehicle, at first he was unable to discern whether any plate was present at all. T. 24.

Weirich followed the vehicle for a while in the adjacent lane, unable to read the markings

on the plate. In his experience, a plate must be legible from a distance of 50 feet of the

vehicle, and this plate was not legible.

        {¶8} Weirich performed a traffic stop and was not able to read the plate until the

vehicle was stopped. His vehicle dash cam and body cam activated when he turned on

lights and sirens because he observed a slight lane violation as the truck went over the

right fog line.

        {¶9} As Weirich approached the truck, his primary concern was officer safety,

but he noticed a New Mexico license plate was present and legible up-close; the left plate

light was illuminated, but the right license-plate light was out. Weirich audibly

commented, “It looks fine walking up on it.” T. 30. Weirich photographed the plate and

the photos were admitted at the suppression hearing as appellee’s exhibits 2 and 3.

Weirich cited appellant for no license-plate light.

        {¶10} After the truck stopped, Weirich contacted appellant, the driver, who was

the sole occupant of the vehicle other than his dog. Weirich ran appellant’s license

information and learned his license was suspended. Also, the plate was registered to a

maroon pickup truck, but this vehicle was black. Appellant’s explanation of the purpose

of his trip from New Mexico to the Detroit suburbs also alerted Weirich’s inclination to

investigate further.
Delaware County, Case Nos. 22CAA090062 and 22CAA090063                                     4

                         Sniff, searches, narcotics, and two indictments

       {¶11} The following evidence is adduced from the record of the change-of-plea

and sentencing hearing, and was not at issue in the suppression hearing.

       {¶12} A K-9 sniff alerted on the vehicle, leading to a probable-cause search

yielding a white rock-like substance in a clear plastic sandwich bag in the left AC dash

vent. The substance appeared to be crystal methamphetamine and weighed 78.6 grams.

A wad of folded U.S. currency was found in the right AC vent. Additional folded U.S.

currency was located in the center dash in “a natural void behind the center cubby area.”

Appellant claimed ownership of the cash behind the center dash area, but denied

knowledge of the narcotics and cash in the AC vents.

       {¶13} Officers noticed what appeared to be tool marks on the interior of the

vehicle. A subsequent search yielded hidden compartments containing “bricks” of

cocaine and fentanyl, in addition to more currency.

       {¶14} In case number 21CR-I-12-0723, appellant was charged by indictment with

one count of aggravated drug trafficking [methamphetamine] pursuant to R.C.

2925.03(A)(2) and one count of aggravated drug possession [methamphetamine]

pursuant to R.C. 2925.11(A), both felonies of the second degree.

       {¶15} In case number 22CR-I-01-0016, appellant was charged by indictment with

one count of trafficking in cocaine pursuant to R.C. 2925.03(A)(2), a felony of the first

degree [Count I]; one count of possession of cocaine pursuant to R.C. 2925.11(A), a

felony of the first degree [Count II]; one count of trafficking in a fentanyl-related compound

pursuant to R.C. 2925.02(A)(1), a felony of the first degree [Count III]; and one count of

possession of a fentanyl-related compound pursuant to R.C. 2925.11(A), a felony of the
Delaware County, Case Nos. 22CAA090062 and 22CAA090063                                  5

first degree [Count IV]. Counts I through IV were accompanied by forfeiture and major-

drug-offender specifications.

       {¶16} On January 14, 2022, appellee filed a motion to join the two cases because

they arose from the same course of conduct. On February 3, 2022, the trial court granted

the motion to join indictments.

       {¶17} On February 28, 2022, appellant filed a motion to suppress evidence

flowing from the traffic stop and arrest, and appellee responded with a memorandum in

opposition. The trial court scheduled an evidentiary hearing for April 18, 2022. After the

evidentiary hearing, appellee filed an additional supplemental response on April 22, 2022,

to which appellant responded on April 25, 2022.

       {¶18} The trial court overruled appellant’s motion to suppress by judgment entry

dated June 10, 2022.

       {¶19} On August 2, 2022, the parties entered a Crim.R. 11(F) plea agreement.

The terms of this agreement stated appellant would plead no contest to “a lesser included

offense of that set forth in Count Three of the Indictment, being Trafficking in between

50g-100g of a Fentanyl Related Compound, a felony of the first degree.” In return,

appellee would dismiss Counts I, II, IV, and the major-drug-offender specifications in case

numbers 22CR-I-01-0016 and 21CR-I-12-0723. Appellant agreed to forfeit a total of

$31,558 in currency, the parties waived a presentence investigation, and acknowledged

the trial court must impose a mandatory prison term of 11 to 16.5 years.

       {¶20} Appellant thereupon withdrew his previously-entered pleas of not guilty and

entered a plea of no contest to Count III, “a lesser-included offense, trafficking in a
Delaware County, Case Nos. 22CAA090062 and 22CAA090063                                    6

fentanyl-related compound” in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(1), a felony of the first degree.

The trial court imposed a mandatory prison term of 11 to 16.5 years.

       {¶21} Appellant now appeals from the trial court’s Judgment Entry of Prison

Sentence dated August 10, 2022.

       {¶22} Appellant raises two assignments of error:

                               ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

       {¶23} “I. APPELLANT’S RIGHTS TO BE FREE OF UNREASONABLE

SEARCHES AND SEIZURES UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT AND OF THE OHIO

CONSTITUTION [WERE] VIOLATED WHEN HE WAS SUBJECT TO A TRAFFIC STOP

THAT WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL

ACTIVITY.”

       {¶24} “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.”

                                        ANALYSIS

                                             I.

       {¶25} In his first assignment of error, appellant argues the trial court should have

granted his motion to suppress because his license plate was adequately illuminated and

Weirich could not lawfully extend the detention after he walked up to the vehicle and

determined it “looked ok.” We disagree.

       {¶26} Appellate review of a trial court’s decision to deny a motion to suppress

involves a mixed question of law and fact. State v. Long, 127 Ohio App.3d 328, 332, 713
Delaware County, Case Nos. 22CAA090062 and 22CAA090063                                       7

N.E.2d 1 (4th Dist.1998). During a suppression hearing, the trial court assumes the role

of trier of fact and, as such, is in the best position to resolve questions of fact and to

evaluate witness credibility. State v. Brooks, 75 Ohio St.3d 148, 154, 661 N.E.2d 1030

(1996). A reviewing court is bound to accept the trial court’s findings of fact if they are

supported by competent, credible evidence. State v. Medcalf, 111 Ohio App.3d 142, 145,

675 N.E.2d 1268 (4th Dist.1996). Accepting these facts as true, the appellate court must

independently determine as a matter of law, without deference to the trial court’s

conclusion, whether the trial court’s decision meets the applicable legal standard. State

v. Williams, 86 Ohio App.3d 37, 42, 619 N.E.2d 1141 (4th Dist.1993), overruled on other

grounds.

       {¶27} There are three methods of challenging a trial court’s ruling on a motion to

suppress on appeal. First, an appellant may challenge the trial court’s finding of fact. In

reviewing a challenge of this nature, an appellate court must determine whether the trial

court’s findings of fact are against the manifest weight of the evidence. See, State v.

Fanning, 1 Ohio St.3d 19, 437 N.E.2d 583 (1982); State v. Klein, 73 Ohio App.3d 486,

597 N.E.2d 1141 (4th Dist.1991). Second, an appellant may argue the trial court failed

to apply the appropriate test or correct law to the findings of fact. In that case, an appellate

court can reverse the trial court for committing an error of law. See, Williams, supra.

Finally, an appellant may argue the trial court has incorrectly decided the ultimate or final

issues raised in a motion to suppress. When reviewing this type of claim, an appellate

court must independently determine, without deference to the trial court’s conclusion,

whether the facts meet the appropriate legal standard in any given case. State v. Curry,

95 Ohio App.3d 93, 96,620 N.E.2d 906 (8th Dist.1994).
Delaware County, Case Nos. 22CAA090062 and 22CAA090063                                   8

       {¶28} The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits

warrantless searches and seizures, rendering them per se unreasonable unless an

exception applies. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d

576 (1967). An investigative stop, or Terry stop, is a common exception to the Fourth

Amendment warrant requirement. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d

889 (1968). Because the “balance between the public interest and the individual's right to

personal security” tilts in favor of a standard less than probable cause in such cases, the

Fourth Amendment is satisfied if the officer's action is supported by reasonable suspicion

to believe that criminal activity “may be afoot.” United States v. Brignoni–Ponce, 422 U.S.

873, 878, 95 S.Ct. 2574, 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975); United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1,

7, 109 S.Ct. 1581, 104 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989). In Terry, the Supreme Court held that a police

officer may stop an individual if the officer has a reasonable suspicion based upon specific

and articulable facts that criminal behavior has occurred or is imminent. See, State v.

Chatton, 11 Ohio St.3d 59, 61, 463 N.E.2d 1237 (1984).

       {¶29} The propriety of an investigative stop must be viewed in light of the totality

of the circumstances surrounding the stop “as viewed through the eyes of the reasonable

and prudent police officer on the scene who must react to events as they unfold.” State

v. Andrews, 57 Ohio St.3d 86, 87–88, 565 N.E.2d 1271 (1991); State v. Bobo, 37 Ohio

St.3d 177, 178, 524 N.E.2d 489 (1988). The Supreme Court of the United States has

reemphasized the importance of reviewing the totality of the circumstances in making a

reasonable-suspicion determination:

                     When discussing how reviewing courts should make

              reasonable-suspicion determinations, we have said repeatedly that
Delaware County, Case Nos. 22CAA090062 and 22CAA090063                                  9

             they must look at the “totality of the circumstances” of each case to

             see whether the detaining officer has a “particularized and objective

             basis” for suspecting legal wrongdoing. This process allows officers

             to draw on their own experience and specialized training to make

             inferences from and deductions about the cumulative information

             available to them that “might well elude an untrained person.”

             Although an officer's reliance on a mere “hunch” is insufficient to

             justify a stop, the likelihood of criminal activity need not rise to the

             level required for probable cause, and it falls considerably short of

             satisfying a preponderance of the evidence standard.

                    United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273, 122 S.Ct. 744, 151

             L.Ed.2d 740 (2002), citing United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411,

             417-418, 101 S.Ct. 690, 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981).

       {¶30} In the instant case, Weirich stopped appellant to investigate the illegible

license plate. Traffic stops based upon observation of a traffic violation are

constitutionally permissible. Dayton v. Erickson, 76 Ohio St.3d 3, 11-12, 1996-Ohio-431,

665 N.E.2d 1091. This Court has held that any traffic violation, even a de minimis

violation, may form a sufficient basis upon which to stop a vehicle. State v. Bangoura, 5th

Dist. No. 08 CA 95, 2009-Ohio-3339, 2009 WL 1916902, ¶ 14, citing State v. McCormick,

5th Dist. No.2000CA00204, 2001 WL 111891 (Feb. 2, 2001); State v. Woods, 5th Dist.

Licking No. 12-CA-19, 2013-Ohio-1136, 2013 WL 1209351, ¶ 60.

       {¶31} In the instant case, the trial court found the traffic stop was justified by

Weirich’s suspicion of a license-plate violation per R.C. 4513.05(A), which requires the
Delaware County, Case Nos. 22CAA090062 and 22CAA090063                                        10

following in pertinent part: “Either a tail light or a separate light shall be so constructed

and placed as to illuminate with a white light the rear registration plate, when such

registration plate is required, and render it legible from a distance of fifty feet to the rear.”

Appellant acknowledges our decision in State v. Ferrell, which is instructive here:

                      Appellant * * * maintains the trial court applied an erroneous

              legal standard by effectively requiring an operator of a motor vehicle

              to provide “full illumination” of the rear license plate. He urges that

              the trial court misinterpreted our affirmance of the denial of a

              suppression motion in State v. Helline, Ashland App. No.

              01COA01424, 2001–Ohio–1899. The facts of Helline entail a dual-

              light system on a rear plate where one bulb was completely out and

              the other was heavily covered with dirt. See id. at 1. We note the

              relevant traffic statute, R.C. 4513.05, provides in pertinent part: “ * *

              * Either a tail light or a separate light shall be so constructed and

              placed as to illuminate with a white light the rear registration plate, *

              * * and render it legible from a distance of fifty feet to the rear. * * * ”

              As noted in our recitation of the facts of the present case, the trial

              court was supplied with several photographs of the rear license plate

              area of appellant's Saab, taken some time after the stop in question.

              The trial court judge subsequently stated that he was “willing to

              accept the photos as a true representation of the appearance of the

              Saab's license plate at the time of the stop.” Judgment Entry Denying

              Motion to Suppress, November 15, 2012, at 10. As appellant
Delaware County, Case Nos. 22CAA090062 and 22CAA090063                                       11

              correctly notes, the trial court, although ultimately determining that

              the stop was valid, concluded that based on the photographs, the

              rear license plate may have been at least partially illuminated,

              although more than half of the letters/number on the plate appeared

              to be unlit. See id. at 10. The trial court judge, nonetheless, did “give

              credence to Officer Leighty's testimony, which convinces me that the

              plate did not appear to be properly illuminated at the time of the traffic

              stop.” Id. at 10.

                      State v. Ferrell, 5th Dist. Delaware No. 13 CAC 01 0001,

              2013-Ohio-4651, ¶ 13.

       {¶32} Similar to the trial court in Ferrell, the trial court in the instant case

determined from Weirich’s testimony and appellee’s exhibits that the license plate was

not properly illuminated. Appellant argues the trial court’s finding is not supported by

competent, credible evidence because the plate was at least partially illuminated.

       {¶33} When ruling on a motion to suppress, the trial court assumes the role of trier

of fact and is in the best position to resolve questions of fact and to evaluate the credibility

of witnesses. State v. Kay, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2022 CA 00020, 2022-Ohio-3538, ¶ 13,

citing State v. Dunlap, 73 Ohio St.3d 308, 314, 1995-Ohio-243, 652 N.E.2d 988; State v.

Fanning, 1 Ohio St.3d 19, 20, 437 N.E.2d 583 (1982). Appellant argues appellee’s

exhibits demonstrate the plate was visible, but Weirich testified he was unable to read the

plate as he followed the vehicle on the roadway. The bodycam video and photographs

show the appearance of the plate after the stop was effectuated.
Delaware County, Case Nos. 22CAA090062 and 22CAA090063                                      12

       {¶34} The trial court’s findings that at first, Weirich could not tell whether the truck

had a license plate at all, and subsequently determined the plate was not visible within

50 feet, are supported by the officer’s testimony. As the trier of fact, the trial court was

free to accept or reject any or all of the testimony presented at the suppression hearing.

State v. Frye, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2006CA00363, 2007-Ohio-7111, ¶ 48. An appellate

court “cannot, and will not, ‘second-guess a trial court's decision to believe the testimony

in the record,’” especially when the trial court had the benefit of comparing the testimony

with the exhibits. State v. Leder, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2018-10-072, 2019-Ohio-

2866, ¶ 20, internal citation omitted.

       {¶35} The trial court did not err in finding Weirich had a sufficient basis upon which

to stop appellant’s vehicle.

       {¶36} Appellant further argues Weirich had no authority to extend the traffic stop

for further investigation after he stated “looks fine walking up on it.”

       {¶37} Weirich was within constitutional authority to make contact with appellant

and investigate further. “When detaining a motorist for a traffic violation, an officer may

delay a motorist for a time period sufficient to issue a ticket or warning.” State v. Batchili,

113 Ohio St.3d 403, 2007-Ohio-2204, 865 N.E.2d 1282. This “includes the period of time

sufficient to run a computer check on the driver's license, registration, and vehicle plates.”

Id. Further, “in determining if an officer completed these tasks within a reasonable length

of time, the court must evaluate the duration of the stop in light of the totality of the

circumstances and consider whether the officer diligently conducted the investigation.” Id.

An officer “may not expand the investigative scope of the detention beyond that which is

reasonably necessary to effectuate the purposes of the initial stop unless any new or
Delaware County, Case Nos. 22CAA090062 and 22CAA090063                                   13

expanded investigation is supported by a reasonable, articulable suspicion that some

further criminal activity is afoot.” State v. Woodson, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2007-CA-00151,

2008-Ohio-670, 2008 WL 442569, ¶ 12 ,quoting Batchili, 113 Ohio St.3d 403, 2007-Ohio-

2204, 865 N.E.2d 1282 at ¶ 34.

       {¶38} “Reasonable suspicion is “* * * something more than an inchoate or

unparticularized suspicion or hunch, but less than the level of suspicion required for

probable cause.” State v. Shepherd, 122 Ohio App.3d 358, 364, 701 N.E.2d 778 (2nd

Dist. 1997). “A court will analyze the reasonableness of the request based on the totality

of the circumstances, viewed through the eyes of a reasonable and prudent police officer

on the scene who must react to events as they unfold.” State v. Farey, 5th Dist. Stark,

2018-Ohio-1466, 110 N.E.3d 960, ¶ 23, citing Village of Kirtland Hills v. Strogin, 6th Dist.

Lake App. No. 2005-L-073, 2006-Ohio-1450, 2006 WL 766541, ¶ 13 (internal citation

omitted).

       {¶39} The Ohio Supreme Court has identified certain specific and articulable facts

that would justify an investigatory stop by way of reasonable suspicion, factors that fall

into four general categories: (1) location; (2) the officer's experience, training, or

knowledge; (3) the suspect's conduct or appearance; and (4) the surrounding

circumstances. State v. Bobo, 37 Ohio St.3d 177, 178-79, 524 N.E.2d 489 (1988); State

v. Andrews, 57 Ohio St.3d 86, 87-88, 565 N.E.2d 1271 (1991). No single factor is

dispositive; the decision must be viewed based on the totality of the circumstances. Bobo,

37 Ohio St.3d 177, 524 N.E.2d 489 at paragraph one of the syllabus; State v. White, 9th

Dist. No. 05CA0060, 2006-Ohio-2966, 2006 WL 1627392, ¶ 16. We believe that these
Delaware County, Case Nos. 22CAA090062 and 22CAA090063                                    14

factors would be helpful when analyzing whether a stop was unconstitutionally prolonged.

State v. Roberts, 5th Dist. Licking No. 2023-CA-00011, 2023-Ohio-2763, ¶ 18.

       {¶40} In the instant case, Weirich testified he noticed the plate “looked ok” as he

walked up to the driver, but the plate was secondary to his concern for officer safety in

that moment. Upon speaking to appellant, he learned appellant was driving from New

Mexico to the Detroit suburbs with no visible baggage; appellant’s driver’s license was

suspended; and upon running the plate, the registration came back to a different vehicle.

       {¶41} Additional information raised Weirich’s suspicions as his encounter with

appellant continued, but evidence at the suppression hearing was limited to the stop itself

and Weirich’s initial contact with appellant. Defense trial court told the trial court at the

opening of the hearing that the suppression motion was strictly limited to the stop, “not

the K-9 and not [appellant’s] statements.” T. 4-5. The scope of the suppression hearing

therefore did not include the officer’s development of reasonable suspicion to continue to

detain appellant.

       {¶42} Appellant implies Weirich’s ability to investigate ended with his comment

that the plate “looked ok” when he viewed it close-up, but we disagree; Weirich was

authorized to make contact with appellant and investigate further, and additional

reasonable suspicion arose at that point. See Batchili, supra, 113 Ohio St.3d 403, 2007-

Ohio-2204, 865 N.E.2d 1282.

       {¶43} The trial court's decision overruling appellant’s motion to suppress evidence

is based upon competent, credible, evidence. We further find that, because Weirich had

a reasonable and articulable suspicion to continue appellant’s detention, no violation of
Delaware County, Case Nos. 22CAA090062 and 22CAA090063                                   15

appellant’s Fourth Amendment rights has been demonstrated. Roberts, supra, 5th Dist.

Licking No. 2023-CA-00011, 2023-Ohio-2763, ¶ 25.

       {¶44} The first assignment of error is overruled.

                                            II.

       {¶45} In his second assignment of error, appellant argues his mandatory indefinite

prison term violates the jury trial guarantee, the doctrine of separation of powers, and due

process principles under the federal and state constitutions. Because the Ohio Supreme

Court recently overruled these arguments in State v. Hacker, 2023-Ohio-2535, –––

N.E.3d ––––, and we have previously overruled these arguments, we disagree.

       {¶46} Pursuant to State v. Maddox, 168 Ohio St.3d 292, 2022-Ohio-764, 198

N.E.3d 797, the Ohio Supreme Court held that constitutional challenges to the Reagan

Tokes Act are ripe for review on direct appeal. State v. Turner, 5th Dist. Licking No. 2022

CA 00040, 2023-Ohio-441, 2023 WL 2017516, ¶ 40.

       {¶47} In State v. Householder, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2021-0026, 2022-

Ohio-1542, at ¶ 6, this Court set forth its position on the arguments raised in appellant's

second assignment of error:

                     For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion of The

              Honorable W. Scott Gwin in State v. Wolfe, 5th Dist. Licking No.

              2020CA00021, 2020-Ohio-5501 [2020 WL 7054428], we find the

              Reagan Tokes Law does not violate Appellant's constitutional rights

              to trial by jury and due process of law, and does not violate the

              constitutional requirement of separation of powers. We hereby adopt

              the dissenting opinion in Wolfe as the opinion of this Court. In so
Delaware County, Case Nos. 22CAA090062 and 22CAA090063                                 16

             holding, we also note the sentencing law has been found

             constitutional by the Second, Third, Sixth, and Twelfth Districts, and

             also by the Eighth District sitting en banc. See, e.g., State v.

             Ferguson, 2nd Dist. Montgomery No. 28644, 2020-Ohio-4153 [2020

             WL 4919694]; State v. Hacker, 3rd Dist. Logan, 2020-Ohio-5048

             [161 N.E.3d 112]; State v. Maddox, 6th Dist. Lucas, 2022-Ohio-1350

             [188 N.E.3d 682]; State v. Guyton, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2019-12-

             203, 2020-Ohio-3837 [2020 WL 4279793]; State v. Delvallie, 8th

             Dist. Cuyahoga, 2022-Ohio-470 [185 N.E.3d 536]. Further, we reject

             Appellant's claim the Reagan Tokes Act violates equal protection for

             the reasons stated in State v. Hodgkin, 12th Dist. Warren No.

             CA2020-08-048, 2021-Ohio-1353 [2021 WL 1530036].

      {¶48} Based on the forgoing authority, the trial court did not err in sentencing

appellant to an indefinite term. Turner, supra, 2023-Ohio-441, ¶ 42; State v. Corbett, 5th

Dist. No. 22CA0013, 2023-Ohio-556, 209 N.E.3d 280, ¶ 46; Hacker, supra; State v.

Cooper, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2022CA00091, 2023-Ohio-2897, ¶ 61.

      {¶49} Appellant's second assignment of error is overruled.
Delaware County, Case Nos. 22CAA090062 and 22CAA090063                               17

                                    CONCLUSION

       {¶50} Appellant’s two assignments of error are overruled and the judgment of the

Delaware County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

By: Delaney, J.,

Hoffman, P.J. and

Baldwin, J., concur.