State v. Hacker
161 N.E.3d 112
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Christopher Hacker was indicted for aggravated burglary (first-degree felony) with a firearm specification and aggravated menacing; he pled guilty under a plea agreement that dismissed two counts and reduced the firearm specification.
- The trial court imposed an indefinite sentence under the Reagan Tokes Law: minimum 6 years / maximum 9 years on the aggravated burglary count, plus a consecutive mandatory 1-year firearm term; additional $10,000 fine and costs were imposed.
- Hacker filed a pre-sentencing objection to the Reagan Tokes indefinite-sentencing provisions and later appealed the sentence.
- On appeal Hacker raised three arguments: (1) Reagan Tokes violates the right to jury trial (Sixth Amendment) and separation of powers; (2) Reagan Tokes violates due process and separation of powers; and (3) the trial court erred by imposing a $10,000 fine without adequately considering his ability to pay.
- The trial court record included a presentence memorandum describing Hacker’s employment/income; Hacker did not object at sentencing to the fine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Hacker) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Reagan Tokes presumptive-release/hearing scheme violates the Sixth Amendment jury-trial right | The statute is constitutional; Hacker forfeited/waived the jury-trial challenge by failing to raise it at trial | ODRC fact-finding at presumed-release hearing constitutes judicial fact-finding that infringes the jury right | Waived on appeal for not being raised at trial; court declined to address the merits |
| Whether Reagan Tokes violates due process or separation of powers | Reagan Tokes differs materially from the old "bad time" scheme and does not unconstitutionally vest judicial power in the executive; statute is constitutional as applied and on its face | Reagan Tokes gives ODRC power to extend incarceration after the minimum term based on conduct/"violations," violating due process and separation of powers (citing Bray/Oneal) | Rejected. Court distinguished Bray (repealed bad-time statute) and held Hacker failed to prove the statute unconstitutional on its face; separation-of-powers and due-process challenges overruled |
| Whether the trial court erred in imposing a $10,000 fine without considering Hacker’s ability to pay | The record shows the court considered Hacker’s sentencing memorandum and thus his ability to pay; no plain error where defendant did not object at sentencing | Trial court did not adequately consider present and future ability to pay as required by R.C. 2929.19(B)(5) | Overruled. No plain error: court considered the PSI/memorandum showing income and therefore met the statutory threshold; no miscarriage of justice |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (Ohio 2016) (standard for appellate review of felony sentences and definition of clear-and-convincing review)
- State ex rel. Bray v. Russell, 89 Ohio St.3d 132 (Ohio 2000) (holding the former "bad time" statute unconstitutional as an executive usurpation of judicial functions)
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (U.S. 1987) (articulating the difficulty of successful facial constitutional challenges)
- State v. Awan, 22 Ohio St.3d 120 (Ohio 1986) (preservation of constitutional objections at trial required for appellate review)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (Ohio 1954) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (Ohio 1978) (plain-error doctrine in criminal cases)