State v. Dames
2020 Ohio 4991
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Defendant Anthony Dames pleaded guilty to second-degree felonious assault (and related counts), and the court imposed an indefinite Reagan Tokes sentence of a 7-year minimum and a 10.5-year maximum.
- The Reagan Tokes Act (effective Mar. 22, 2019) authorizes judge-set minimum terms and statutory maximums, with ODRC hearings at the minimum term to decide whether to keep an offender up to the maximum.
- ODRC may rebut the presumption of release at the minimum term based on statutory findings (institutional infractions, extended restrictive housing, or high security classification); ODRC also administers earned reduction of minimum prison term credits.
- Dames did not object at sentencing and did not raise any constitutional challenge to the Reagan Tokes Act in the trial court.
- On appeal Dames raised a single assignment of error arguing the Reagan Tokes Act, as applied to first- and second-degree qualifying felonies, violates the U.S. and Ohio Constitutions.
- The court affirmed: it found Dames forfeited the constitutional challenge by not raising it at trial, declined to find plain error, and declined to exercise its discretion to reach the merits for several prudential reasons.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Reagan Tokes Act’s sentencing scheme is constitutional | State: Dames forfeited the challenge by not raising it at the trial court; no plain error shown; statute presumed constitutional; ripeness concerns | Dames: The Reagan Tokes Act (as amended) violates the U.S. and Ohio Constitutions (due process and separation of powers concerns) | Court: Forfeited; declined to review merits and affirmed sentence |
| Whether the appellate court should exercise discretion to review a forfeited constitutional challenge | State: Issue forfeited and not ripe; no plain error; no need to reach merits | Dames: Appellate review appropriate despite forfeiture (argues constitutional defect) | Court: Declined to exercise discretion because of presumption of constitutionality, lack of lower-court ruling, and absence of plain-error argument |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Awan, 22 Ohio St.3d 120, 489 N.E.2d 277 (court must raise constitutionality at first opportunity in trial court)
- State v. Quarterman, 140 Ohio St.3d 464, 19 N.E.3d 900 (plain-error standard for appellate review)
- Harrold v. Collier, 107 Ohio St.3d 44, 836 N.E.2d 1165 (presumption of constitutionality for statutes)
- State v. Thompkins, 75 Ohio St.3d 558, 664 N.E.2d 926 (presumption of constitutionality cited)
- In re M.D., 38 Ohio St.3d 149, 527 N.E.2d 286 (appellate discretion to consider forfeited constitutional issues in special circumstances)
- Sizemore v. Smith, 6 Ohio St.3d 330, 453 N.E.2d 632 (better for lower court to address constitutional questions first)