2022 Ohio 122
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Amber Bice was indicted on multiple felonies including engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity, trafficking/possession of fentanyl-related compound, unlawful weapons transactions, and tampering with evidence; many counts/specifications later dismissed.
- On February 22, 2021 Bice pled guilty to an amended count of possession (second-degree felony) with a forfeiture specification.
- The trial court sentenced Bice under the Reagan Tokes Act to a mandatory minimum of 8 years and an indefinite maximum of 12 years, ordered forfeiture/destruction of seized property, and imposed the mandatory $7,500 statutory fine.
- Bice filed a motion to waive the mandatory fine under R.C. 2929.18(B)(1) claiming indigency; the court denied the waiver after reviewing her financial disclosure and noting drug-sale proceeds.
- Appellate counsel was appointed; Bice appealed raising three assignments of error: (1) Reagan Tokes is unconstitutional, (2) trial court abused discretion by imposing the fine in violation of due process and Ohio Const., and (3) ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to raise the Reagan Tokes challenge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of Reagan Tokes (presumptive-release/indefinite term) | State: challenge is not ripe for review on direct appeal because defendant has not yet served the minimum or faced extension under Reagan Tokes | Bice: Act violates jury trial, due process, separation of powers, and equal protection | Court: Not ripe; constitutional challenges overruled |
| Denial of waiver of mandatory $7,500 fine under R.C. 2929.18(B)(1) | State: trial court considered financial disclosure and evidence of drug proceeds/sales and properly denied waiver | Bice: indigent and unable to pay; denial violated due process and Ohio Const. | Court: No abuse of discretion; defendant failed to demonstrate indigency and inability to pay; fine upheld |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel for not challenging Reagan Tokes | State: no prejudice because constitutional challenge not ripe; counsel not deficient for failing to raise unripe claim | Bice: counsel should have raised constitutional challenge | Court: Overruled as claim not ripe; IAC claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (standard for abuse of discretion)
- State v. Gipson, 80 Ohio St.3d 626 (burden on offender to demonstrate indigence to avoid mandatory fine)
- State v. Martin, 140 Ohio App.3d 326 (trial court must consider present and future ability to pay; hearing not required)