Court Opinion

ID: 9891660
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-19 14:17:50.02339+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:00:02.337256
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Reyes, 2023-Ohio-3798.]

                               COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                              EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                 COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE OF OHIO,                                    :

                 Plaintiff-Appellant,             :
                                                             No. 112529
                 v.                               :

JAMES REYES,                                      :

                 Defendant-Appellee.              :

                                JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

                 JUDGMENT: VACATED; REMANDED
                 RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: October 19, 2023

          Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
                             Case No. CR-22-676405-A

                                            Appearances:

                 Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
                 Attorney, and Daniel T. Van, Assistant Prosecuting
                 Attorney, for appellant.

                 Cullen Sweeney, Cuyahoga County Public Defender, and
                 Francis Cavallo, Assistant Public Defender, for appellee.

MARY J. BOYLE, J.:

                   Plaintiff-appellant, the state of Ohio (“State”), brings this appeal

challenging the trial court’s three-year prison sentence for defendant-appellee,

James Reyes’s (“Reyes”), felonious assault conviction. Specifically, the State argues
the trial court erred by failing to impose a sentence under the Reagan Tokes Law.

For the reasons set forth below, we vacate Reyes’s sentence and remand to the trial

court for resentencing in accordance with the Reagan Tokes Law.

I. Facts and Procedural History

               In December 2022, Reyes was charged in a two-count indictment.

Both counts charged him with felonious assault and carried one- and three-year

firearm specifications. In February 2023, Reyes pled to an amended Count 1 with

the one-year firearm specification. The remaining count was nolled. During the

plea advisement, the trial court stated that it found the Reagan Tokes Law to be

unconstitutional. Nevertheless, the court continued to advise Reyes that he is

“subject to indefinite term of either 2 to 3 years, 3 to 4-1/2 years, 4 to 6 years, 5 to 7-

1/2 years, 6 to 9 years, 7 to 10-1/2 years, or 8 to 12 years under the Reagan Tokes

Law.” (Tr. 7.) The matter then proceeded directly to sentencing, where the trial

court imposed a “prison sentence at the Lorain Correctional Institution of 3 year(s)”

and the court determined that the “indefinite provisions of SB 201 to be

unconstitutional[.]” (Judgment Entry, Feb. 15, 2023.)

               It is from this judgment, that the State appeals, raising the following

single assignment of error for review:

      Assignment of Error One: The trial court plainly erred when it found S.B.
      201 [Reagan Tokes Law] to be unconstitutional and did not impose an
      indefinite sentence pursuant to S.B. 201.
II. Law and Analysis

                The State, by arguing that the trial court committed plain error when

it did not sentence Reyes under the Reagan Tokes Law, acknowledges its failure to

object at the trial court, which results in a plain error standard of review on appeal.1

State v. Debose, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109531, 2022-Ohio-837, ¶ 14-15 (where this

court found that an appellate court may still review the trial court’s decision for plain

error even when the appellant failed to object to the constitutionality of the Reagan

Tokes Law before the trial court).

                To demonstrate plain error, the State “must show ‘an error, i.e., a

deviation from a legal rule’ that was ‘an “obvious” defect in the trial proceedings,’

and that the error ‘affected a substantial right,’ i.e., a ‘reasonable probability’ that

the error resulted in prejudice, affecting the outcome of the trial.” State v. Nitsche,

2016-Ohio-3170, 66 N.E.3d 135, ¶ 91 (8th Dist.), quoting State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio

St. 3d 385, 2015-Ohio-2459, 38 N.E.3d 860, ¶ 22; State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21,

27, 2002-Ohio-68, 759 N.E.2d 1240. “‘We recognize plain error “with the utmost

caution, under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a manifest

miscarriage of justice.”’” Id. at ¶ 91, quoting Lyndhurst v. Smith, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga

No. 101019, 2015-Ohio-2512, ¶ 32, quoting State v. Landrum, 53 Ohio St.3d 107,

110, 559 N.E.2d 710 (1990).

1 We note that under R.C. 2953.08(B)(2), the state has the right to appeal a sentence if it is

contrary to law. A sentence that fails to impose a mandatory provision is contrary to law.
State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St. 3d 365, 2010-Ohio-1, 922 N.E.2d 923, ¶ 21.
               The Reagan Tokes Law provides that certain first- and second-degree

felonies are qualifying offenses subject to an indefinite sentencing scheme.

R.C. 2929.14. When imposing prison terms for offenders with qualifying offenses,

trial courts are required to impose an indefinite sentence by imposing a stated

minimum prison term, as provided in R.C. 2929.14(A)(2)(a), and an accompanying

maximum prison term, as provided in R.C. 2929.144(B).

               The State argues it was plain error for the trial court to not impose the

sentence required under the Regan Tokes Law because this court’s en banc decision

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

Reagan Tokes Law is constitutional and does not violate the right to jury trial, the

separation-of-powers doctrine, and the right to due process. Reyes acknowledges

that this court has found the Reagan Tokes Law constitutional on these grounds,

and submits his appellate brief in the interests of preserving his argument.

               While the State relies on our decision in Delvallie, the Ohio Supreme

Court recently found, in State v. Hacker, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-2535, that the

Reagan Tokes Law is constitutional. The Hacker Court determined that the law does

not violate the separation-of-powers doctrine, the right to a jury trial, or the right to

due process. Id. at ¶ 41.

               Although Reyes’s felonious assault conviction was a qualifying

offense subject to indefinite sentence, the trial court, in the instant case, found the

Reagan Tokes Law unconstitutional and imposed a definite term of two years on

that count. Accordingly, we find that the definite sentence imposed by the trial court
was contrary to law. State v. Clausing, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 110776, 2022-Ohio-

1762, ¶ 22, citing State v. McCalpine, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 110665, 2022-Ohio-

842, ¶ 6; State v. Primm, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 110479 and 110480, 2022-Ohio-

945, ¶ 10.

               The State’s sole assignment of error is sustained. The trial court’s

aggregate three-year prison sentence is vacated, and the matter is remanded to the

trial court for a resentencing hearing in accordance with the Reagan Tokes Law.

III. Conclusion

               It was plain error for the trial court to sentence Reyes to a definite

sentence when he was subject to an indefinite sentence under the Reagan Tokes

Law, which the Ohio Supreme Court in Hacker, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-2535,

recently found to be constitutional.

               Accordingly, Reyes’s three-year prison sentence is vacated, and the

matter is remanded to the trial court for a resentencing hearing in accordance with

the Reagan Tokes Law.

      Costs waived.

      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. Case remanded to the

trial court for resentencing.
      A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

_________________________
MARY J. BOYLE, JUDGE

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, P.J., and
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR
Keywords:
State’s appeal; sentence; plain error; Regan Tokes Law; constitutionality. Judgment
vacated and remanded. It was plain error for the trial court to sentence the
defendant to a definite sentence when he was subject to an indefinite sentence under
the Reagan Tokes Law. Accordingly, the defendant’s three-year prison sentence is
vacated, and the matter is remanded to the trial court for resentencing in accordance
with the Reagan Tokes Law.