Court Opinion

ID: 9398161
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-30 15:07:57.583714+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:31.279093
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Heater, 2023-Ohio-1789.]

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

STATE OF OHIO,

        PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,                               CASE NO. 5-22-32

        v.

MADELEINE R. HEATER,                                      OPINION

        DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

                 Appeal from Hancock County Common Pleas Court
                           Trial Court No. 2022 CR 106

                                      Judgment Affirmed

                              Date of Decision: May 30, 2023

APPEARANCES:

        William T. Cramer for Appellant

        Phillip A. Riegle for Appellee
Case No. 5-22-32

WALDICK, J.

       {¶1} Defendant-appellant, Madeleine R. Heater (“Heater”), appeals the

judgment of sentence entered in the Hancock County Court of Common Pleas on

October 5, 2022. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

                                Procedural History

       {¶2} Procedurally, this case originated on March 1, 2022, when the Hancock

County Grand Jury returned an indictment charging Heater with one count of

Aggravated Possession of Drugs (Methamphetamine), a first-degree felony in

violation of R.C. 2925.11(A).

       {¶3} On March 4, 2022, an arraignment was held and Heater entered an

initial plea of not guilty. Several months of pretrial proceedings then ensued.

       {¶4} On August 5, 2022, a change of plea hearing was held. At that time,

Heater entered a negotiated plea of guilty to an amended indictment, the possession

charge in the original indictment having been amended upon the state’s motion to a

second-degree felony.

       {¶5} On September 21, 2022, a sentencing hearing was held. At that time,

Heater was sentenced to a minimum prison term of three years, with a potential

maximum prison term of four and one-half years.

       {¶6} On October 13, 2022, Heater filed the instant appeal, in which she raises

a single assignment of error for our review.

                                        -2-
Case No. 5-22-32

                                Assignment of Error

       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

       {¶7} In the sole assignment of error, Heater contends that the trial court erred

in imposing an indefinite prison term pursuant to the Reagan Tokes Act, with Heater

arguing that the Reagan Tokes Act is unconstitutional.

       {¶8} Heater did not challenge the constitutionality of the Reagan Tokes Law

in the trial court, so we therefore apply the plain-error standard of review in this

case. State v. Ball, 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-21-16, 2022-Ohio-1549, ¶ 57. “An error

qualifies as ‘plain error’ only if it is obvious and but for the error, the outcome of

the proceeding clearly would have been otherwise.” State v. Barnhart, 3d Dist.

Putnam No. 12-20-08, 2021-Ohio-2874, ¶ 8, citing State v. Yarbrough, 95 Ohio

St.3d 227, 245, 2002-Ohio-2126, ¶ 32.

       {¶9} As this Court noted in Ball, supra, challenges to the Reagan Tokes Law

do not present a matter of first impression in 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

                                         -3-
Case No. 5-22-32

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. We have also rejected constitutional challenges related to the

jury trial issue. See Ball at ¶ 61-63.

       {¶10} Thus, on the basis of Ball and other prior precedent, this Court finds

no merit to Heater’s arguments in this case. The assignment of error is overruled.

       {¶11} Having found no error prejudicial to the defendant-appellant in the

particulars assigned and argued, the judgment of the Hancock County Court of

Common Pleas is affirmed.

                                                                 Judgment Affirmed

MILLER, P.J. and ZIMMERMAN, J., concur.

/jlr

                                         -4-