Court Opinion

ID: 9394436
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-15 14:08:36.898236+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:00.243527
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Sullivan, 2023-Ohio-1612.]

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

STATE OF OHIO,

        PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,                                CASE NO. 1-22-37

        v.

MARCUS J. SULLIVAN,                                        OPINION

        DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

                   Appeal from Allen County Common Pleas Court
                            Trial Court No. CR2022 0028

                                       Judgment Affirmed

                              Date of Decision: May 15, 2023

APPEARANCES:

        Chima R. Ekeh for Appellant

        John R. Willamowski, Jr. for Appellee
Case No. 1-22-37

MILLER, P.J.

       {¶1} Defendant-appellant, Marcus J. Sullivan (“Sullivan”), appeals the May

11, 2022 judgment of sentence of the Allen County Court of Common Pleas. For

the reasons that follow, we affirm.

                                Facts & Procedural History

       {¶2} On March 17, 2022, the Allen County Grand Jury indicted Sullivan on

a single count of felonious assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(1), (D)(1)(a), a

second-degree felony.     The indictment also included a repeat-violent-offender

specification pursuant to R.C. 2941.149(A). On March 24, 2022, Sullivan entered

a written plea of not guilty.

       {¶3} Following a trial held on May 9-10, 2022, the jury found Sullivan guilty

of felonious assault as charged in the indictment. The trial court accepted the jury’s

verdict and found Sullivan guilty. After reviewing evidence presented on the

matter, the trial court determined that Sullivan was a repeat violent offender

pursuant to R.C. 2941.149(A).

       {¶4} The trial court proceeded immediately to sentencing and sentenced

Sullivan to an indefinite term of 8 to 12 years in prison on Count One. As to the

specification, the court imposed a mandatory term of 2 years in prison to be served

prior to and consecutive to the prison term imposed in Count One for an aggregate

term of 10 to 14 years in prison. The following day, the trial court filed its judgment

entries of conviction and sentence.

                                           -2-
Case No. 1-22-37

       {¶5} Sullivan filed his notice of appeal on June 3, 2022. He raises three

assignments of error for our review.

                             First Assignment of Error

       Sullivan’s indefinite sentence pursuant to R.C. 2967.271 (The
       Reagan Tokes Law) violates the right to a jury trial as protected
       by the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and
       Article 1, Section 5 of the Ohio Constitution. (Tr. Pg. 336-337)

                            Second Assignment of Error

       R.C. 2967.271 (The Reagan Tokes Law) unconstitutionally
       violates the separation of powers doctrine of the United States,
       and Ohio Constitution. (Tr. Pg. 336-337)

                            Third Assignment of Error

       R.C. 2967.271 (The Reagan Tokes Law) violates the right to due
       process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
       Constitution and Article 1, Section 16, of the Ohio Constitution.
       (Tr. Pg. 336-337)

       {¶6} In his assignments of error, Sullivan contends that his indefinite

sentence for felonious assault is contrary to law because the indefinite-sentencing

provisions of the Reagan Tokes Law are unconstitutional. Specifically, Sullivan

claims these provisions interfere with his right to a jury trial, violate the separation-

of-powers doctrine, and infringe upon his right to due process.

       {¶7} As this Court has noted in State v. Ball, 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-21-16,

2022-Ohio-1549, challenges to the Reagan Tokes Law do not present a matter of

first impression to this Court. Ball at ¶ 59. “Since the indefinite sentencing

provisions of the Reagan Tokes Law went into effect in March 2019, we have

                                          -3-
Case No. 1-22-37

repeatedly been asked to address the constitutionality of these provisions. We have

invariably concluded the indefinite sentencing provisions of the Reagan Tokes Law

do not facially violate the separation-of-powers doctrine 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.

Further, for the reasons stated in Ball, the remaining constitutional issue under

Reagan Tokes related to a jury trial is also unavailing. Id. at ¶ 61-63. Thus, on the

basis of Ball and our prior precedent, we find no merit to Sullivan’s arguments.

Sullivan’s assignments of error are overruled.

       {¶8} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant herein in the

particulars assigned and argued, we affirm the judgment of the Allen County Court

of Common Pleas.

                                                                Judgment Affirmed

ZIMMERMAN and EPLEY, J.J., concur.

/jlr

** Judge Christopher B. Epley of the Second District Court of Appeals, sitting
by Assignment of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Ohio.

                                         -4-