2023 Ohio 74
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- Howard was indicted on multiple counts including aggravated vehicular homicide, aggravated vehicular assault, and DUI; he pleaded guilty to one count of each and other counts were dismissed.
- At sentencing the court imposed concurrent eight-year terms for the two violent counts and a consecutive three-year term for DUI, totaling 11 years.
- The trial court explicitly declined to impose an indefinite sentence under S.B. 201 (the Reagan Tokes Law), stating it found the statute unconstitutional and that the law was "in flux."
- The State appealed, arguing the trial court erred by refusing to apply Reagan Tokes and thus imposing a sentence contrary to law.
- The Eighth District, constrained by its en banc decision in State v. Delvallie, held the trial court was required to impose an indefinite Reagan Tokes sentence, reversed, and remanded for resentencing.
- The opinion notes some judges disagreed with Delvallie and would have found Reagan Tokes unconstitutional.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by finding S.B. 201 (Reagan Tokes) unconstitutional and refusing to impose an indefinite sentence | The court must impose an indefinite sentence under Reagan Tokes; refusal is error and contrary to law | Trial court asserted Reagan Tokes is unconstitutional and declined to apply it given uncertainty | Reversed: court was required to impose an indefinite sentence under Reagan Tokes; remanded for resentencing |
| Whether the Eighth District is bound to follow its en banc precedent upholding Reagan Tokes | State: appellate panel is constrained by Delvallie and must follow it | Defense: cited ongoing uncertainty (Supreme Court activity) and trial-court discretion to refuse application | Held: appellate court is bound by Delvallie and applied it to require Reagan Tokes sentence |
| Whether failing to impose a mandatory provision of sentencing statute renders a sentence contrary to law | State: omission of mandatory sentencing feature (indefinite term) makes sentence contrary to law under Underwood | Defense: trial court refused to impose statute on constitutional grounds | Held: Failure to impose the statutory indefinite term rendered the sentence contrary to law, warranting reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Delvallie, 185 N.E.3d 536 (8th Dist. 2022) (en banc: Reagan Tokes Law not unconstitutional; district must follow decision)
- State v. Underwood, 922 N.E.2d 923 (Ohio 2010) (sentence that omits a mandatory statutory provision is contrary to law)