Court Opinion

ID: 9379912
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-16 17:08:21.290213+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:03.493270
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Dotson, 2023-Ohio-821.]

                                   COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                                  EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                     COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE OF OHIO,                                  :

                 Plaintiff-Appellant,           :
                                                              No. 111880
                 v.                             :

DAVID DOTSON,                                   :

                 Defendant-Appellee.            :

                                    JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

                 JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND REMANDED
                 RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: March 16, 2023

              Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
                                 Case No. CR-22-669100-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
                 Erika B. Cunliffe, Assistant Public Defender, for appellee.

MICHAEL JOHN RYAN, P.J.:

                   Plaintiff-appellant state of Ohio (“the state”) appeals from the trial

court’s judgment that found S.B. 201, the Reagan Tokes Law, unconstitutional and

thus the trial court did not sentence defendant-appellee David Dotson accordingly.
Pursuant to this court’s en banc decision in State v. Delvallie, 2022-Ohio-470, 185

N.E.3d 538 (8th Dist.), finding the Reagan Tokes Law constitutional, we reverse the

trial court’s judgment and remand the matter for resentencing.

               Dotson entered a guilty plea to felonious assault and having weapons

while under disability. The trial court sentenced Dotson to a definite sentence of

three years for felonious assault to run concurrent to 24 months for having weapons

while under disability.   The trial court’s journal entry noted that the “court

determined the provisions of S.B. 201 to be unconstitutional as to Count 1”

(felonious assault).

               The state timely appealed, assigning a single error for our review:

“The trial court plainly erred when it found S.B. 201 to be unconstitutional and did

not impose an indefinite sentence pursuant to S.B. 201.”

               Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(B)(2), the state has the right to appeal a

sentence that is contrary to law. “A sentence that fails to impose a mandatory

provision is contrary to law.” State v. Potter, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 111782, 2023-

Ohio-534, ¶ 4, citing State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365, 2010-Ohio-1, 922

N.E.2d 923, ¶ 21. In Delvallie, this court held that the Reagan Tokes Law is

constitutional and overruled the same arguments that Dotson has raised in his

appeal. Dotson concedes as much in his brief but maintains that Delvallie was

incorrectly decided.
              Because the trial court failed to impose an indefinite sentence on

Dotson’s qualifying offense in accordance with the Reagan Tokes Law, the sentence

was contrary to law. The state’s sole assignment of error is sustained.

              The trial court’s judgment was contrary to law because it failed to

sentence Dotson in accordance with the Reagan Tokes Law, which this court found

constitutional in Delvallie. The trial court’s judgment is reversed, and the matter is

remanded for resentencing in accordance with the Reagan Tokes Law.

      It is ordered that appellant recover of appellee costs herein taxed.

      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.

      A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

________________________
MICHAEL JOHN RYAN, JUDGE

FRANK DANIEL CELEBREZZE, III, P.J., and
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR