State v. Bond
2022 Ohio 1628
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Malaki Bond was indicted on three counts of aggravated robbery (first-degree felonies) with firearm specifications; the indictment alleged an ongoing, continuing course of criminal conduct spanning Butler and Hamilton Counties.
- Bond initially pled not guilty but, per a plea agreement, pled guilty to one count of aggravated robbery with a three-year firearm specification; other counts were dismissed.
- The prosecutor read a factual statement at the plea hearing that tied the charged conduct to a continuing course of criminal conduct across Butler and Hamilton Counties; Bond acknowledged the facts and the court accepted his plea after a Crim.R. 11 colloquy.
- At sentencing the court imposed an indefinite sentence under the Reagan Tokes Law of 11 years minimum to 16.5 years maximum, plus a consecutive mandatory three-year firearm specification to be served first.
- Bond appealed, raising two assignments of error: (1) the trial court erred by failing to obtain a waiver of his right to an impartial jury in the county where the offense was committed (Hamilton County), and (2) his Reagan Tokes indefinite sentence was unlawful and constitutionally infirm, and counsel was ineffective for not challenging it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by not obtaining a waiver of the right to an impartial jury in the county where the offense occurred | State: Venue was proper in Butler because the robbery was alleged as part of a continuing course of criminal conduct across Butler and Hamilton under R.C. 2901.12(H); no separate county-specific waiver was required. | Bond: The court should have obtained a waiver of his right to a jury trial specifically in Hamilton County (where the robbery occurred). | Court: Rejected Bond. R.C. 2901.12(H) permits prosecution in any county where elements occurred as part of a continuing course; plea colloquy complied with Crim.R. 11 and Bond knowingly waived his trial rights. |
| Whether Bond's Reagan Tokes indefinite sentence is unlawful or unconstitutional and whether counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge it | State: Sentence complied with Reagan Tokes statutory scheme; any constitutional challenge was forfeited because Bond did not raise it below. | Bond: Reagan Tokes indefinite sentencing scheme is unconstitutional; counsel ineffective for failing to challenge it. | Court: Rejected Bond. Sentence was properly calculated and imposed; constitutional challenges were forfeited on appeal and counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise an argument that has been repeatedly unsuccessful. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Dangler, 162 Ohio St.3d 1 (2020) (explains Crim.R. 11(C) plea-colloquy requirements and the exceptions that do not require a showing of prejudice)
- State v. Draggo, 65 Ohio St.2d 88 (1981) (upholds constitutionality of R.C. 2901.12 venue for continuing course of criminal conduct)
- State v. Jackson, 141 Ohio St.3d 171 (2014) (permits indictment in one county for conduct in another when part of a continuing course of criminal conduct)