State v. Coykendall
2021 Ohio 3875
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Coykendall was indicted in two Marion County cases for multiple burglaries (second-degree felonies) occurring Sept.–Oct. 2019; separate plea agreements in both cases resulted in guilty pleas to one burglary count in each case.
- The plea agreements jointly recommended concurrent six-year minimum (nine-year maximum) prison terms but expressly left the court free to impose a different sentence.
- At sentencing the court reduced each agreed minimum to five years (7.5-year maximum) but, contrary to the plea recommendation, ordered the two terms to run consecutively.
- The court also found Coykendall was on post-release control at the time of one offense and imposed a 12‑month consecutive sanction for that violation.
- Coykendall appealed, arguing (1) the court imposed consecutive sentences without making the statutory findings or a factual basis for them, and (2) the Reagan Tokes Act’s sentencing structure violates the separation‑of‑powers doctrine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Coykendall) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court made required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings to impose consecutive sentences | The court made the necessary findings at sentencing and incorporated them into the judgment entry; those findings are supported by the record | The court failed to make the statutory findings on the record or otherwise lacked a factual basis to impose consecutive terms | Affirmed: findings were present in the sentencing hearing and mirrored in the entry; consecutive sentences supported by record |
| Whether the Reagan Tokes Act violates separation of powers | The State defends the Act as constitutional and asks the court to follow controlling precedent upholding it | Coykendall argues the Act is unconstitutional under separation of powers and due process principles | Affirmed: court declined to revisit its prior holdings and rejected a facial separation‑of‑powers challenge |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (trial court must make required consecutive‑sentence findings at sentencing and incorporate them in the entry)
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (standard of review for felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08)
- State v. Grate, 164 Ohio St.3d 9 (clarifying R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) consecutive‑sentence requirements)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- State v. Maddox, 160 Ohio St.3d 1505 (Supreme Court acceptance noted concerning the constitutionality/ripe review of the Reagan Tokes Act)