2022 Ohio 683
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Defendant Ronald Buckhanon pled guilty to two counts of rape (first-degree felonies) and one count of gross sexual imposition (fourth-degree) for sexual abuse of a 13-year-old victim in December 2019; the victim's mother was a co-defendant.
- The PSI and police report described multiple sexual acts (oral and vaginal contact) and the mother’s participation/instigation of the abuse.
- Buckhanon has a lengthy criminal history (violent offenses, domestic violence, robbery, drug convictions); defense emphasized a single incident, remorse, and substance-abuse history.
- At sentencing the court imposed concurrent maximum prison terms for the rapes (11 years minimum) and, under the Reagan Tokes Law, an indefinite maximum of 16.5 years; mandatory five-year postrelease control and Tier III sex-offender classification were imposed.
- Buckhanon appealed, raising (1) that the record does not clearly and convincingly support imposition of the maximum sentence under R.C. 2929.12, and (2) that the Reagan Tokes Law’s indefinite sentence portion is unconstitutional.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the record clearly and convincingly fails to support imposition of a maximum sentence under R.C. 2929.12 | State: Sentence is within statutory range; court considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 and facts (violent conduct, prior history, harm) supporting maximum | Buckhanon: Record does not support maximum term; mitigation (single event, remorse, acceptance of responsibility) warrants less than maximum | Court affirmed: sentence within statutory range; trial court stated it considered required factors and record supports sentence; appellate review under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit substituting judgment on 2929.11/2929.12 findings |
| Whether the Reagan Tokes Law’s indefinite portion is unconstitutional (separation-of-powers and due process) | State: Reagan Tokes is constitutional as applied; court follows en banc precedent upholding the Act | Buckhanon: Indefinite sentence portion violates separation-of-powers and due process | Court affirmed: following this court’s en banc decision in Delvallie, challenges to Reagan Tokes are not sustained and Act is constitutional |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 169 N.E.3d 649 (Ohio 2020) (Ohio Supreme Court limited appellate reweighing of R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 under R.C. 2953.08)
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (Ohio 2016) (addressed appellate review of sentences; later characterized as containing dicta relevant to scope of review)
- State v. Wilson, 129 Ohio St.3d 214, 951 N.E.2d 381 (Ohio 2011) (trial courts need only consider, not make specific on-the-record findings for, R.C. 2929.11/2929.12)
- State v. Arnett, 88 Ohio St.3d 208, 724 N.E.2d 793 (Ohio 2000) (principles on sentencing discretion and required considerations)